NHS Treatment Charges for Overseas Visitors

Baroness Boothroyd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to strengthen the charging regulations for overseas tourists who unlawfully obtain free medical treatment from the National Health Service; and who is involved in the consultation on this issue.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the recent public consultation involved a wide range of organisations and individuals, including NHS interests. More than 100 responses have been received and the Government are considering a number of possible changes to tighten the arrangements for charging overseas visitors for NHS hospital treatment.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's response. Does he agree that as well as strengthening the charging regulations for tourists using the NHS, debt recovery must also be considered? Is he aware of the document produced by CCI legal services, which estimates that,
	"£50–200 million is lost to the NHS every year through under or non-recovery of NHS charges applicable to overseas visitors"?
	What action is the noble Lord's department able to take to recover some of that huge outstanding debt?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am aware of that document, but we do not necessarily agree with the figures in it. The noble Baroness must also understand that collecting debt has a cost. The cost of collecting debt must be proportionate to the debt to be collected.

Lord Renton: My Lords, have the Government managed to estimate how many people from overseas come here simply to obtain medical treatment?

Lord Warner: My Lords, it is, and has been since the beginning of the NHS, the responsibility of local health services to decide whether or not someone is exempt from NHS costs. It is for the overseas visitor manager to collect those costs locally. As successive governments have devolved that authority to the local level, we do not collect data on it centrally.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, do the Government intend to extend our reciprocal agreements with any of the new entrants to the European Community?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not presently have the details of countries with which we have reciprocal agreements, but I am happy to make inquiries and write to my noble friend.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is the Minister aware of recent research that shows that in HIV clinics in parts of the country—London and Manchester, I think—those who arrived to be tested had fallen ill, been discovered to be HIV-positive when they became pregnant, or were those whose partners had died? I should add that none of those people was an illegal immigrant. What light does that throw on the accusation that people are coming in as illegal immigrants from various countries where serious diseases are rife to use our services and endanger our public? Do the Government intend to test those who legally enter this country from countries where HIV or TB, for example, are rife? Would that fall within the bounds of the Human Rights Act 1998?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government are currently reviewing imported infections and immigration into the UK. That review is being conducted by the Cabinet Office. I cannot throw any more light on the issue until the report is available, but I understand the points made by the noble Baroness.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not a little help on the margins for those in need from abroad a small price to pay when we are prepared to strip much of the underdeveloped world of its best doctors?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have always made clear that where urgent treatment is needed either to save life or to prevent the condition becoming life-threatening such treatment should not be refused or delayed simply because there are doubts about whether the patient is chargeable. The NHS remains a humanitarian service.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not accept the figure of £200 million cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, what figure for the cost is acceptable to the Government?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government have kept inflation under control; the noble Lord's figure seems to have quadrupled since the noble Baroness asked her supplementary question. I ask him to consider that.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, is it not a credit to this country and a comfort to overseas tourists who come here as genuine tourists and do not deliberately fall ill that we provide healthcare for them should they fall ill? Is that not also a help to our tourist industry, which at present is in deficit in terms of overseas tourists coming into the country compared with those who leave to go as tourists to other countries within the European Union?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, who introduces a sense of proportion to the issue. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, we have reciprocal arrangements with many countries through which British tourists also benefit when they fall ill abroad.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister understand that his answer to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy was a marvellous example of what an answer ought not to be?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I thought that it was not bad, given that it was on the spur of the moment.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that there is a risk: either one introduces a wholly bureaucratic process whereby everyone using the NHS must prove their entitlement to treatment, or NHS staff use very subjective judgments, including race and language, which could lead to problems of people who are legitimately entitled to NHS treatment being challenged? Surely we should be very careful before we go down that route.

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We acknowledge that there are loopholes; that is why we have had this consultation exercise. But it is very easy to exaggerate the number of loopholes and make the exercise over-bureaucratic. I am grateful to my noble friend for his balanced observations.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, when the Minister replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, about the debt of £50 million to £100 million—I shall not over-exaggerate it—he said that the Government did not "necessarily agree" with the document. Do they not necessarily agree because they thought that the data in the document were fallacious, or did they just not like the message?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we are always interested to hear messages, however unpalatable. This is a listening Government, as I have said previously. But we had questions about the methodology in that piece of work.

Earl Howe: My Lords, will the Government publish the responses to the consultation before any further regulations on the subject are laid?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will make known the drift of those comments and observations during the consultation process when they make known their decisions on the exercise itself.

Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy

Baroness Masham of Ilton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will introduce a strategy to tackle alcohol-related problems.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit has already published an interim report on the evidence that it has examined relating to the development of an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. A cross-government strategy involving a wide range of interests will be published in 2004, when implementation will commence in line with the NHS Plan.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that, because there has been for some time a drugs strategy, it has been a great problem to treat people with severe alcohol problems, particularly in prisons? Does he agree with me that joined-up government is needed, because alcohol abuse covers so many different departments, including the Home Office and those responsible for health, education, sport, roads and many others?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. That is why the alcohol harm reduction strategy is being conducted through the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, which has great expertise in cross-governmental issues and problems.

Baroness Goudie: My Lords, we are aware of the cost to the health service of alcohol-related illnesses. Will the Government's strategy team consider making the same restrictions on alcohol advertising as on smoking advertising?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the role of alcohol advertising in harmful consumption was highlighted by a number of respondents to the joint Department of Health/Strategy Unit consultation. That issue will be carefully examined as part of the Strategy Unit's work to develop a strategy.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that such solutions will not come cheaply, and will he beware of the quick fix that happens so often, whereby someone abusing alcohol is taken in, dried out, patted on the back and sent out into the same environment? One needs services such as Charis, a drug and alcohol dependency unit on the Mile End Road. It spends time and money, from the local authority and others, but there will be no quick fix in dealing with the problem.

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right; there are no quick fixes, and we must ensure that the strategy is fit for its purpose. It is worth reminding my noble friend that, although the changes may have price tags, so does alcohol misuse. Up to £1.7 billion a year, for example, is spent by the NHS on alcohol-related problems.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, when will we have an opportunity to debate the statutory guidance notes that were supposed to be issued, and whose publication we have awaited for some time, as a result of the Licensing Act 2003? Many noble Lords debated at length their concerns about the deregulation of licensing laws. We were assured that much of what should have been contained in the legislation would be in the statutory guidance notes to help local authorities to manage some of the many problems that may result from deregulating licensing laws.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Peston: My Lords, has my noble friend's department given any attention—

A Noble Lord: My Lords, the other side.

Lord Peston: No, my Lords, a speaker from the other side has just asked a question—or that is what it looked like to me. Has my noble friend's department given any attention to the difference between alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking? Cigarette smoking is poisonous from the very first puff. What is important about alcohol is that it is excessive amounts of it that are dangerous. In the context of the strategy, therefore, is he not as appalled as I am that, at this time of year, alcohol companies are pouring out advertising on television with the message that the more you drink, the better? If we are to stop anything, we must look at the nature of such advertising.

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend Lady Goudie, we are looking into the issue of advertising as part of the Strategy Unit's work. As my noble friend Lord Peston said, there is a fundamental difference. For many people, alcohol is widely associated with pleasure. What we are dealing with is misuse of alcohol and excessive consumption. Tobacco is an extremely dangerous substance in its own right.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, do the Government agree with the research that shows that the level of alcohol harm is directly related to the national volume of consumption? If that is the case, will the Government set a good example to others by reducing the amount of alcohol they serve at their own entertainments?

Lord Warner: My Lords, if the noble Lord has some information about that amount increasing or changing, perhaps he will let me know so that I can look into the matter.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under-age drinking is increasing and that drink is coming into schools? What is the Government's policy on teachers and pupils drinking in schools?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We know that, although only a quarter of children in the 11 to 15 age group drinks on a regular basis, the average weekly amount that they consume has risen from 5.3 units in 1990 to 10.2 units in 2002, which is an area of concern. I am sure that my noble friends in the Department for Education and Skills are addressing this issue in the guidance that they give to schools and teachers.

Dental Fraud

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I must tell the House that AMTAC Laboratories, which carried out some of the tests, is associated with AMTAC accreditation services, with which I have a small interest.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask her Majesty's Government what have been the savings to the National Health Service arising from the inquiry by the Counter Fraud and Security Management Service into fraud related to the supply of imitation gold fillings in dentistry.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the National Health Service Counter Fraud and Security Management Service was established in 1998 and investigates all matters of fraud and corruption in the NHS. Its dental fraud team has had a growing impact on fraud involving dental services, but I cannot comment on individual investigations that are currently in progress.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is an absolute scandal that patients should be ripped off in such a way, when some fillings contain only 2 per cent gold? At a time when the media try to criticise the NHS, should we not praise the NHS's counter fraud service, which has been in operation for only four years but has saved the NHS millions of pounds and reduced fraud in the NHS by 36 per cent?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's observations. He is quite right that the new counter fraud service has achieved a huge reduction of 25 per cent in dental fraud by patients. He is also right that it is scandalous that some dentists have been charging the NHS for gold inlays that contain non-precious metals. The dental fraud team is investigating that practice in relation to about 90 dentists.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, says, the counter fraud service should be congratulated. Indeed, it has saved some £295 million over the past few years. If the Minister cannot comment on individual investigations, in the case of the campaign to combat fraud in agency nursing, how many prosecutions has the CFS arranged over the past few months?

Lord Warner: My Lords, my papers are very strong on dental fraud at the moment, but not so strong on nursing agencies, because I had quite a heavy burden to carry here this afternoon. Of course, I will look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, when the fee per item of service system is abolished in April 2005, will the new fee structure, which is not yet finalised, make recommendations about the use of precious, semi-precious or non-precious metals, each of which has different uses in different situations?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord's contribution in bringing into being a new dental contract arrangement. I am not sure whether the contract itself will deal with the particular problem that he has identified, but I will certainly look into whether there will be new guidance following on the kind of work being done by the counter fraud service, as I mentioned in my Answer to my noble friend Lord Hoyle.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, could toothpaste manufacturers carry the legend on their boxes that "all that glisters is not gold"?

Lord Warner: Yes, my Lords, and so should some of the inlay material being supplied to some dentists.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, although my noble friend the Minister cannot comment on individual cases, will he assure us that the Government will take every possible measure to stamp out this practice?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance to my noble friend.

Brain Injuries: Rehabilitation

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as vice-president of Rehab UK, an honour that I share with my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether representations have been made by Rehab UK on the rehabilitation and training of people with brain injuries to assist them back to work; and, if so, what was their response.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are in regular contact with Rehab UK. We recently received its progress report, to which my honourable friend Des Browne, the Minister for Work, replied at the end of October. That was followed up by a very helpful meeting with officials on 11th November.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Will she confirm that 74 in every 100 people who complete a year-long rehabilitation course at a Rehab brain injury centre go into paid employment, training or further education, or voluntary work often leading to employment? Will she acknowledge that the £15,000 cost of the course is recouped within the first two years of employment from benefits not claimed? Is that not excellent value for money that should be expanded and encouraged better to help those 100,000 people a year left with residual problems of brain injury?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. I suspect that my noble friend's case is even stronger. Young men experience accidents, sports injuries, assaults and industrial accidents, and head injuries are one of the main reasons for disability for young men between 15 and 30. Given the level of effective intervention described by my noble friend, such young men have all their lives ahead of them.
	On the bigger point, all of us used to think that the best way to help disabled people was to support them through disability benefits. What we are now doing as a government—and I am sure that we have support throughout the House—is to bring to the foreground the need for rehabilitation, health and safety at work and similar strategies to prevent people becoming disabled and to rehabilitate disabled people. That is why I am so pleased to remind the House about the publication last Thursday of the Government's Review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance, which features vocational rehabilitation. The Government are drawing up a new strategic framework, which we expect to publish in late summer 2004. Rehab UK has been one of those urging such an approach.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the Government's response to the Health Select Committee report on head injury rehabilitation, which the Government produced in July 2001, they said:
	"Getting people back to functional independence following illness or injury is a high priority for the NHS. This year, with the Department for Work and Pensions, we are planning Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots to test the best ways of helping people with prolonged illness or disability to remain in their jobs".
	In the light of that, why has it taken so long to get the pilots off the ground?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I think that we are doing quite well. We have a collective budget of something like £50 million. My department has contributed about £8 million or £9 million. Much of that money—perhaps three-quarters—goes to people with learning difficulties and mental health problems, some to people with visual and hearing impairments and some for brain injury. One of the purposes of the pilots is to show which modules—if I can use that language—are generic, such as those involving self-esteem and confidence building, and which are specific to the age and type of disability. So far, all my information suggests that things are going well.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there appears to considerable uncertainty about which is the lead department on such issues in ensuring that there is co-operation between departments? As the noble Baroness is replying to the Question, would I be right to assume that it is the Department for Work and Pensions?
	Is the Minister aware that Rehab UK has complained that the statutory funders responsible for its financing have not met their obligations? Will she say what those statutory funders are and whether she shares the view that they have not met their obligations?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Rehab UK is one of the major charities, and two of my noble friends are associated with it in significant ways. It has been saying, as have many charities, that one of its difficulties is the existence of several different flows of finance. That is not peculiar to Rehab UK. There is no charity that I am aware of to which it does not apply.
	In this case, my understanding is that, probably, the local authorities are among the major funders. In addition, there are, as I have said, resources available from DWP, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. Also, something like a quarter of their money comes from the EU. It is a complex matter for charities such as Rehab UK to juggle those streams of finance, co-ordinate the flow and make sure that they can take in referrals who will benefit most from rehabilitation.
	We are considering the issues. One of the functions of the strategic review is to address the problem raised by the noble Lord. He is right.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I share my noble friend's appreciation of the response to his Question by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham. Would she agree that, while her department has been increasingly supportive and encouraging of Rehab UK's humane leadership in this policy area, some local social services authorities could do much more to get new schemes off the ground and that, while they drag their feet, crucially important rehabilitation is delayed and people stricken by traumatic brain injury suffer? Is there any further action she and her colleagues can take?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual local authorities, although I know that there is a troubled history in some areas. Obviously, behind-the-scenes discussions are pursued at official level to see how the problems can be resolved.
	The document came out only on Thursday. A framework for vocational rehabilitation that defines the scope, develops a framework for intervention, provides an overview of the work and seeks to integrate the work of various bodies will, I hope, address the issues raised in your Lordships' House today.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, does the Minister share my concern about the number of people employed by Remploy, many of them, as the Minister described, young men with head injuries caused by motorcycle accidents? Can she reassure the House that Remploy is still required to provide opportunities to those with head injuries, to help them back into regular employment?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Viscount's concern is about the funding that Remploy has for that task. I look to him for help on that.
	It is certainly the case that Remploy has two main pathways for helping people back into work. One is their sheltered workshops, and that grant has been frozen for a number of years. Increasingly, however, disabled people are being encouraged back into supported employment with what I would call mainstream employers. For that, the Remploy grant has gone up from £95 million in 1999 to £119 million this year. That is an increase of £24 million in three years. In that sense, Remploy should have the resources to do the work.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that early intervention after trauma is the greatest indicator that successful rehabilitation can take place? I know that she is not a Minister for the Department of Health, but will she encourage her colleagues in that department to take note of the cost-benefit analysis provided by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, and encourage health professionals to send cases that arrive as accidents to the post-traumatic treatment centres as soon as possible rather than depriving those useful units of their livelihood? There is one such unit in my home town, Dorking.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I share the noble Baroness's perspective. One of the difficulties—the House will understand what I mean by that—is that the Department of Health must give priority to clinical need. My department is more concerned with the cost-benefit. That is, perhaps, a cold way of putting it, but we are concerned with the capacity to help people to return to the labour market. Sometimes, those things are in conflict. However, given the effective outcomes produced by Rehab UK—over 70 per cent back into employment or education—we should be able to get our act together in dealing with young men with head injuries.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I recognise that there are difficulties with cross-departmental responsibilities, but will the framework to which the Minister referred build on existing services? How will those services be identified?
	I declare an interest, as president of John Grooms, which recently produced a futures report on the needs of disabled people and runs a special brain injuries unit. We discovered that that unit does not fit into any registration programme—the National Care Standards Commission or the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. How will such services be identified and properly enmeshed in the new framework?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, one of the motives for having the review is to present an overview of the work currently being done. I give a particular assurance that we will check that John Grooms and other organisations have access to input, but I would be very surprised if, following today's discussion—triggered by my noble friend's Question—the organisations were not aware of the review. I suspect that major players such as John Grooms and Rehab UK will be quick to give us their views. We will need views not just from disability organisations but from employers, trade unions, local authorities and other players.

Wheat

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the consequences of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs's estimate of the English wheat area grown.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the revised estimates indicate that the English wheat area has fallen by 8 per cent between June 2002 and June 2003, rather than by 5 per cent, as previously estimated. That will mean that the final figure for production is likely to be lower than previously expected, but the market effect is likely to be small and short term.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, I remind the House of my family's farming interests.
	The Minister must be concerned that, because of Defra's failure to keep correct figures, £50 million may be lost to wheat producers in the UK. Does he take that seriously and accept the remarks made by Steve Langton, who was in charge of the June census? He admitted that there was a need to review the methodology.
	As the IACS payments are available to the Government in May, the actual amount of wheat grown is known. How are the mistakes made? Is the Minister concerned that many farmers who sold their wheat in advance have lost £5 a tonne? That is a large loss, when multiplied.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret the error. In using the IACS basis to augment the census basis, the mistake was made of mixing up holdings and businesses. It was a simple mistake, which had this effect.
	I cannot accept the figure of £50 million that has been quoted—the noble Baroness quoted it too—for the loss to farmers arising from the mistake. When the initial figures were announced, it had virtually no discernible effect on the market price, which rose steadily before and after that date until the revised figures were produced. Although there was a momentary rise after the revised figures, it has since come down again by significantly more than half, and things are more or less on trend. I do not think that the accurate figure is anything like £50 million.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I declare an interest as an arable farmer who is incensed at Defra's bungling. Bearing in mind that wheat prices went up only £5 per tonne, does the Minister think it justifiable that milling prices are reported to have gone up from £25 to £34 per tonne? Does he think that that is being fairly passed to the consumer by the millers?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, wheat prices, in total, have gone up dramatically this year, largely due to the poor harvest in Europe. They have increased in both the feed and the milling markets. Largely, the benefit has gone to arable farmers. The issue that we are discussing now has had little effect on that. As regards the price benefit being passed on to consumers, clearly, the price that millers pay for the wheat means that consumers pay a higher price.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister know how much the price of a loaf of bread has risen this year on average?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give an average price increase. The price of wheat has almost doubled; the price of bread has nothing like doubled. Principally, that is because most bread is sold in supermarkets where, often, it is a loss leader. Therefore, the full price increase has not been passed on to consumers, but some of it has been passed on. If there are more accurate figures, I shall supply them to the noble Baroness.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a dairy farmer. We all take seriously the use of price-sensitive information on share prices in the City. Bearing in mind how the market has reacted to the information, can my noble friend clarify what procedures exist to detect and guard against the misuse of price-sensitive information from government agricultural statistics?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that was an error. There is no case of which I am aware where price-sensitive statistics have been leaked from the department before their normal issue. Frequently, the final figures are different from the initial figures. In this case, the error was not discovered until after the normal date of final figures.
	My point to the noble Baroness was that this had a minimal effect on the price. Effectively, we are price takers in this country. The difference in production is likely to be about half a million tonnes in a world market of 580 million tonnes. Therefore, it is unlikely to have had a dramatic sustained effect on prices, although, momentarily, there was the increase in the UK price—to which the noble Baroness referred—but that rapidly returned to trend.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that he thought that the price had not gone up, but he was not too certain of the figures. Is he aware—I think that I am correct—that for every £1 spent on a loaf of bread, eight pence is accruable to wheat? Therefore, it is unsurprising that the increased cost of wheat has not affected the price of a loaf of bread.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my figures are not quite as low as that. Nevertheless, the noble Earl is correct: only a small part of the total price of a loaf of bread goes to the farmer.

Earl Peel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real difficulty is in trying to establish why the mistakes occurred in the first place? I have been informed—as have others—that it was largely due to a lack of resources. If that is the case, can the Minister give an assurance to the House that necessary funds will be made available to ensure that that kind of mistake does not occur again?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly, the lessons need to be learnt by the department; in particular, the manner in which we conducted the census and used material that originated for another purpose—the IACS purpose—in the census. However, the mistake cannot be put down to lack of resources. It was a clear and systematic error in using IACS information and mistaking the definition of holding for the definition of business. It was extremely unfortunate, but it cannot be put down to resources.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, would the Minister agree that much of the problem stems from the fact that all the forms are incredibly complicated? Having slaved over them for several nights with my poor wife, who is the farmer, I can attest to that fact. Perhaps the whole thing could be simplified, particularly as the department has access to digital maps but the farmer does not. Perhaps there could be more help in this area.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in effect, part of this problem arose through trying to use information supplied just once by the farmer for other purposes and, therefore, to relieve the burden on the farmer. I am well aware of the complexity of many of the forms that farmers fill in and the frequency with which they have to do it. That is why the department is in the process of developing whole-farm plans whereby information provided for one purpose can be used for other purposes. In that particular case, there was an error in transposing from one to the other. Ideally, we should be able to use the same information a number of times for several regulatory and information purposes.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister feel encouraged that the forces of nature are far more influential on the lives of farmers and, indeed, on the lives of everyone than the forces of government?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always happy to agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the forces of nature. Henceforth, I assume that we shall not have any interventions from him blaming either the British Government or European regulations for the plight of certain farmers. Both are important. Essentially, the changes in wheat prices this year are due to the climate, not to any of us.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, is it not correct that earlier in the season the Government offered UK wheat at discounted prices because the price was estimated on what they thought the yield would be? Although the Minister said that it did not have much effect, I urge him to think differently. It had a huge effect.

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. I do not think that it can have had a huge effect. Clearly, there is a surplus of wheat here and there is a market for that surplus. The surplus is somewhat less—by 500,000 tonnes—than it would otherwise have been. But it is not true that the price taken earlier in the season is affected by the error. The price earlier in the season was significantly lower than the price now and later in the season, immediately prior to the error being discovered and announced. I do not think that the noble Baroness is correct in that respect.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Abuja

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which took place in Abuja, Nigeria, from 5th to 8th December. Copies of the communique and declaration have been placed in the Library of the House.
	"Her Majesty The Queen attended the meeting in her role as head of the Commonwealth and also paid a state visit to Nigeria. She was warmly welcomed by the Nigerian people. The outgoing Commonwealth Chairman in Office, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, paid tribute on behalf of all Commonwealth members to the Queen's dedication and commitment to the Commonwealth. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in echoing that tribute.
	"Nigeria itself returned to the Commonwealth only in 1999, after a turbulent period of military rule. The Queen's visit, and the holding of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting there, underlines the progress made since then in rebuilding a democratic and prosperous Nigeria. Britain is committed to supporting the reform programme led by President Obasanjo, on whose chairmanship of the summit I gave sincere congratulations. In a difficult situation he managed matters with great skill.
	"Commonwealth Heads of Government last met in Coolum, Australia, in March 2002. At Abuja, we reviewed developments since then. We agreed on the urgent need to relaunch the world trade talks which stalled at Cancun in September, and underlined our collective commitment to a successful Doha Development Round.
	"That commitment is significant. The Commonwealth represents one-third of the world's population; developing and developed countries; large and small states; and agricultural, service and manufacturing-based economies. All have different perspectives and interests. The fact that all of us agreed on the need to relaunch the Doha Development Round, and on the need for all parties to show flexibility in the search for agreement, shows that a global deal is possible. Everyone will gain if the talks succeed, but the biggest winners will be the world's poor; and if the talks fail, they will be the biggest losers too.
	"We discussed other development issues. Heads of Government agreed on the need to accelerate progress to meet the millennium development goals, which aim to halve the proportion of people living in poverty by 2015. I reaffirmed the UK's own strong commitment to that goal.
	"Heads of Government also underlined their concern at the spread of HIV/AIDS. It now threatens not only Africa, but increasingly Asia and other parts of the world. Three million people will die of the virus this year alone. Two in three people infected live in Commonwealth countries. It poses one of the gravest threats to sustainable development.
	"We agreed on the need to redouble our efforts to fight this threat. Britain is playing its full part, including through our own "Call for Action" on World AIDS Day, and we are now the second largest bilateral donor in the world on HIV/AIDS after the United States of America. Our bilateral aid amounted to more than £270 million in 2002–03 alone, a real demonstration of commitment on behalf of the people and Government of Britain.
	"The last Commonwealth summit was postponed following the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001. Since then the terrorists have continued their indiscriminate campaign. We agreed in Abuja that terrorism threatens everyone, regardless of nationality or faith; and that all Commonwealth members would stand together to meet and defeat this challenge.
	"The meeting considered the situation in the two countries that have been suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth: Pakistan and Zimbabwe. On Pakistan, Heads of Government welcomed the progress made back towards democratic governance. They expressed the hope that the Pakistan Parliament would soon pass the necessary measures to allow the lifting of Pakistan's suspension.
	"Where Pakistan has moved forward since Commonwealth leaders last met, Zimbabwe has gone backwards. The country was suspended from the Commonwealth in March 2002, shortly after elections, which the Commonwealth's own observers concluded were neither free nor fair.
	"Since then there has been more violence and intimidation against the opposition MDC; against lawyers and human rights activists; indeed, against anyone speaking up against President Mugabe's oppressive policies. Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, the Daily News, has been closed down, despite court orders in its favour.
	"Meanwhile, ZANU-PF's ruinous economic policies are driving the country further and further into chaos. Inflation is more than 500 per cent. Zimbabwe's GDP has halved in five years. The IMF decided last week to begin procedures to expel Zimbabwe due to its appalling economic policies. Half of the population now needs food aid. Britain remains the leading cash donor for the UN's humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe. Over the past two years, we have given 100 million dollars in food aid.
	"In those circumstances, I and others argue that it was inconceivable that Zimbabwe should be readmitted to the councils of the Commonwealth and that, on the contrary, it should remain suspended until we saw concrete evidence of a return to democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law—the very principles on which the Commonwealth was founded.
	"I am glad to say that this approach was agreed. It was decided that Zimbabwe should indeed remain suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth; that President Obasanjo as Chairman in Office, together with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, will seek to facilitate progress inside Zimbabwe; and that if sufficient progress is made on the issues of concern he will report, via a representative group of six Commonwealth members, to Heads of Government. Heads will revisit the issue in the light of that report, and take any decision on the lifting of the suspension by consensus.
	"This is the outcome we wanted. It is also the outcome that President Mugabe worked assiduously to avoid. It gives the lie to one of his most outrageous claims—that the Commonwealth's approach to Zimbabwe is a white conspiracy led by the UK against black Africans. The fact is that every single Commonwealth member signed up to the Abuja statement on Zimbabwe—including the other 19 African members of the Commonwealth, despite the strongly held doubts of some of those countries. Nor did any African member of the Commonwealth take up Mr Mugabe's invitation to boycott the summit meeting. The outcome in Abuja was hard fought, but in the end was a victory for Commonwealth values.
	"Mr Mugabe's reaction—to withdraw Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth—shows clearly that he does not accept Commonwealth principles. It was a decision taken without regard for the wishes or well-being of the Zimbabwean people. ZANU-PF's isolation will be increased. But the strong bonds that exist between the Zimbabwean people and the rest of the Commonwealth remain. There will always be a place for a democratic Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth.
	"The summit also re-elected the present Commonwealth Secretary-General, Don McKinnon, for a second and final four-year term. We welcome that outcome. The Secretary-General has done an excellent job in his first term. He will continue to have our full support in his second.
	"Finally, I participated at the Commonwealth sports breakfast. We looked back to Manchester's successful hosting of the last Commonwealth Games in 2002, and forward to the next in Melbourne in 2006. I highlighted the UK's future sporting priorities.
	"At this Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, a group of more than 50 countries came together to discuss the issues that matter most to their peoples—prosperity, security, sustainable development, the fight against terror—and agreed a common approach on all, in the interests of all.
	"They discussed more controversial issues such as Zimbabwe, where it is no secret that there were and remain a range of differing views among member states. But here, too, through serious discussion and debate, the Commonwealth was able to reach a consensus on the way forward. I commend the outcome to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to reaffirm the powerful support that Members on these Benches have always given and will continue to give to the Commonwealth. It is a unique international organisation, bringing together nations of all continents, of all creeds and races, united—most of them, at least—by the values that we in this House stand for: a hatred of tyranny and racism, and a common commitment to freedom, equality for all, democracy and the rule of law.
	I was interested to see that the conference also underlined the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary, so I hope very much that the noble Baroness will take this opportunity to send a copy of paragraph 8 of the communique to her noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, whose plans have aroused such widespread fears for judicial independence.
	In the communique and in the Prime Minister's Statement, there were strong signals pointing to lifting the suspension of Pakistan from the Commonwealth. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what obstacles, if any, she sees to what would be a welcome return by Pakistan?
	Perhaps I may welcome something that was not mentioned in the Statement: the support for the United Nations programme of action on the illicit trade in small arms. Can the noble Baroness explain what review mechanism the Government have put in place to monitor compliance?
	Perhaps I may also welcome the depth and clarity of the Commonwealth condemnation of terrorism. I am sure that the noble Baroness will join us in expressing her conviction of the quality of the international leadership of President Bush, Prime Minister Howard and, of course, her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on this issue.
	The Statement did not report to the House the concerns expressed by some countries, and reflected in paragraph 35 of the communique, about travel advisories. Will the noble Baroness give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Government never have been and never will be deflected by diplomatic niceties from issuing advice for the protection of British citizens?
	We agree that much more needs to be done on multi-lateral trade to help to relieve the poverty of too many Commonwealth members, and to push forward the Doha development round. Is not the noble Baroness, as I am, dismayed by the wretched record of the protectionist European Union in this respect? Does this not underline the scale of the failure of our efforts at Cancun? Why are the Government not doing far more to secure a lowering of the EU tariffs that hurt small and poor countries?
	I also welcome the commitment to combating corruption, something that has impoverished too many nations in the past. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how many Commonwealth countries have so far signed and ratified the UN convention against corruption?
	I also note that the 2007 Heads of Government meeting will take place in Uganda. Are the Government satisfied that the Ugandan Government fulfil all the terms of the Harare declaration?
	Can the Minister explain to the House the basis of the opposition from some countries to the re-election of Secretary-General McKinnon?
	We welcome the strong and realistic statement on the tragic and appalling scourge represented by the spread of HIV/AIDS. Are the Government aware that we on this side support strongly action taken by the Government to support effective action against AIDS in Commonwealth countries and outside?
	Finally, I turn to the question of Zimbabwe, which under Mugabe has become a ghastly scar on the face of Africa. In March 2002, the noble Baroness told the House that,
	"the decision that was taken not to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth undermines the credibility of the Commonwealth".—[Official Report, 19/3/02; col. 1231.]
	Does she agree that the actions of some nations in seeking to lift the suspension of Zimbabwe undermine the credibility of the Commonwealth, and that those nations have some very hard soul-searching to do about the reasons for their stand?
	Before the recent promotion of the Leader of the House, she managed this country's policy towards Zimbabwe. Time and again, she stood at the Dispatch Box and told the House that she was talking with international colleagues about possible action, insisting that quiet diplomacy would solve the problem. In the past two years, I have heard more than 30 Starred Questions on Zimbabwe. This House has not been backward in showing its concern in calling for more determined and effective action from her Government. On our Front Benches, my noble friends Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Astor of Hever, and Lady Rawlings, and, on our Back Benches, my noble friends Lord Blaker and Lady Park of Monmouth, and many others around the House, have been tireless in their efforts to persuade the noble Baroness to take firmer, faster and crisper action against the Mugabe regime.
	For all the fine words in the Prime Minister's Statement today, there is an abiding sense that too little was done too late. The result of the policy that has been pursued, which showed too much tolerance to Mugabe until his predictable crimes turned into predictable reality, is that today in Zimbabwe there is more violence, murder, insecurity, starvation, corruption and tyranny than even three years ago. The British Government's policy of moving only at the slowest rate allowed by international organisations has been a failure.
	Many noble Lords will find it baffling for some Commonwealth leaders, even now, to be calling for constructive engagement with Mugabe. Can the noble Baroness tell them, in the light of the failure of the policy of weakening Mugabe, that this is the last time to be softening the stance against him? Appeasement of dictators has never succeeded, and it will not do so now. I hope that the noble Baroness will at least agree with that.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We on these Benches strongly agree that the Commonwealth is a unique and important association. In that context, it is of course troubling that the staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat has dropped by nearly a third in the past 20 years and that the amount of money available to the Commonwealth to use for aid has also dropped significantly. Today it is only about £20 million, which means that the association lacks the clout that it had perhaps a generation ago. That may be a tragedy, because it is one of the very few associations of developed and developing countries in the world.
	I echo what the noble Baroness said about the significant role of the President of Nigeria, who deserves considerable praise for the way in which he handled a very difficult Commonwealth Heads of Government conference, and the whole of the Zimbabwe question. It is important that he has emerged as one of the figures in Africa most willing to stand up for democracy and the rule of law in a country where that is not easy to do. In that context, can the noble Baroness tell us anything about the continual request from the Nigerian Government for co-operation from the British Government in the pursuit of money laundered out of Nigeria, which amounts to many billions of dollars? The Nigerian Government have repeatedly said that they are not getting the co-operation that they believe that they deserve from our country. That seems to go against the claim of Commonwealth co-operation that was made so strongly in the Statement.
	I agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition that the position of western countries on Doha is absolutely central. He mentioned the EU, and we would certainly not defend the common agricultural policy; but he could also have mentioned the recent very substantial increase in agricultural subsidies by the United States. The western world must recognise that it bears a major responsibility for the imbalance of world trade and, in World Trade Association discussions, a very unfair measure of agricultural protection, which harms Africa and the developing countries above all. Until it does so, we are not in a very strong position to sing of the beauties of freer world trade, since we ourselves are very much part of the problem.
	I turn briefly to three particular cases. First, can the noble Baroness tell us how much practical help the Commonwealth Secretariat is now able to give on the AIDS problem in terms of health structures in the Commonwealth? As we all know, while the question of the provision of less expensive drugs is being addressed, that is only a small part of the problem. The solution depends heavily on the health structure of paramedics and others who can ensure that the drugs are properly used, without which money spent on drugs can to some extent be money down the drain.
	Secondly, the noble Baroness mentioned that there was a probability or possibility that if Pakistan continues to extend democratic measures, which it has started by holding local government elections, it might be welcomed back into the Commonwealth. Many of us would welcome that. However, is the Commonwealth assuring itself that measures are being taken to cease to train a substantial number of infiltrators and terrorists in Pakistan? I recognise that President Musharraf has limited powers in the tribal areas, but the country is a great source of major terrorism in the area, which has to be tackled sooner or later.
	Lastly, with regard to Zimbabwe, the leader of the Conservative Party was rather hard on the Leader of the House. There is a real problem with the solidarity felt among many African countries with a man who was at one time a hero of the liberation movement. We may regard that as foolish or sentimental, but it is a real fact of life. It carries with it too much solidarity, but the Leader of the House in her other capacity has had to deal with it. We should be realistic; it is questionable whether through the Commonwealth or the United Nations we could carry a majority of developing countries with regard to much tougher action against Zimbabwe.
	I refer finally to one area in which we in the United Kingdom carry a substantial responsibility. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that those who are perceived to fight for democracy, freedom of expression and the rule of law—including Zimbabwe's judges, the brave editor of the Daily News and his staff and many other people who are active in trying to bring democracy to Zimbabwe—will cease to be deported back to Zimbabwe if they escape and seek asylum in this country? Is the noble Baroness assured that the Home Office is aware that that kind of deportation is contrary to the efforts that all of us want to see to bring Zimbabwe back to democracy?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their welcoming of the Statement. I shall seek to address their points.
	I am slightly surprised by the initial question asked by the noble Lord with respect to the independence of the judiciary. It seemed like a rather desperate attempt to bring in the debate that we are going to have in this House with respect to constitutional reform. The noble Lord is well aware that the Government remain committed to the independence of the judiciary. That has always been our position, and it has been the touchstone of the reforms that are proposed.
	As for the other points raised by the noble Lord, the Commonwealth members welcomed the progress that has been made on Pakistan. In particular, they welcomed the holding of elections and the formation of national and provincial assemblies, and noted in particular the role of women and of minorities in the legislature. A timetable was not given for Pakistan's re-admittance to the Councils of the Commonwealth, but further progress in those areas and greater democratisation are required from Pakistan and Pakistan is clear about that.
	On the illicit trade in small arms, the noble Lord may be aware that a conference in the UK looked at those issues. A mechanism has been put in place to ensure that there is international support on that issue, but if I am able to find any further information for the noble Lord, I will happily write to him.
	The noble Lord will be aware that our travel advice is focused solely on the need to provide timely information to our citizens. That will continue to be the main aim of our travel advice.
	On trade, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the failure of Cancun and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke about the disappointing progress on the trade agenda. Noble Lords will recall that we strove hard to reach agreement at Cancun and were disappointed not to be able to do so, particularly as we had thought that the reform of the common agricultural policy would be the basis for an agreement. We remain committed to the Doha development agenda. As noble Lords may recall, the European Union had dropped its commitment to two of the four new issues on the trade agenda. One important agreement to be reached at the Commonwealth meeting was that the Commonwealth would send a group of Ministers around key capitals to stress the importance for both developing and developed countries of an early resumption of the round. We will continue to work within the European Union and in the wider international community for improvements on trade. I entirely agree with the points that were made about the differentials in trade between the developed and the developing world.
	I do not have an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about corruption. If I can find a figure, I shall write to him.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will know that concerns have been expressed about the need for Uganda to move swiftly to multi-party democracy. The United Kingdom will continue to press for that. The Secretary-General was re-elected by a majority at the meeting.
	On Zimbabwe, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the outcome of the Commonwealth meeting was significant. There were clear differences of opinion, but the noble Lord is well aware that the Commonwealth works ultimately by consensus. That means that all countries signed up to the declaration and to the communique, which is important for the values and principles that underlie the Commonwealth.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that Zimbabwe is viewed in very different ways by some countries in Africa. The role that Robert Mugabe played in the independence movement stirs emotions, as does the issue of land reform in Zimbabwe. Many Africans feel that the United Kingdom paid no attention to historical injustices and woke up to the issue only recently, when a black government came into power. We have taken strong action. We were the first country to put an arms embargo in place. We worked hard for EU sanctions; we worked hard for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth last year. I do not agree with the noble Lord that we showed tolerance to Zimbabwe. It is significant that the United Kingdom has been singled out by Robert Mugabe for vilification. Our High Commissioner and his staff in Harare have had to put up with a great deal of abuse. The noble Lord will know that all members of the British Government are banned from going to Zimbabwe, so I do not accept the noble Lord's point on that. Nor do I agree that our policy has been one of appeasement. I have asked noble Lords opposite on many occasions from this Dispatch Box what they suggest that we should do that we have not done. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, wrote to me on that point and I answered every point that he raised.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that President Obasanjo deserves praise. I agree with that. It has undoubtedly been a difficult CHOGM and he handled the meeting with considerable skill and sensitivity.
	We have tried to do all we can to assist the Nigerian Government's pursuit of money launderers. I know that from my own meetings with the president this year, but he has also discussed the issue with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Officials have discussed ways of taking the matter forward. The issue is a great deal more complex than it appears. That became clear when our officials began their talks earlier this year. However, there has been constant contact between them.
	On support for health structures, particularly in relation to HIV/AIDS, the Commonwealth is able to offer technical assistance and to share people and expertise. Through its bilateral development assistance programmes, the UK is able to help countries strengthen their fragile health systems. We have paid particular attention to that matter, because there is no point in putting money into drugs if the health systems are not in place.
	The issue of terrorism remains very important for Commonwealth members. It was agreed that the Commonwealth would continue to give countries greater support, particularly smaller countries that do not have the resources and expertise to put anti-terrorist measures in place. In response to the noble Baroness's question about Zimbabwe and deportations, I shall write to her so that I can give her the latest information.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords—

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there is plenty of time for everybody.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness not only for the Statement but also for the comprehensive competence with which she has answered every one of the points raised from the two Front Benches. I also endorse the points made both by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I shall try to draw them a little closer to each other by saying that the common agricultural policy, which was condemned so robustly by my noble friend, and the misbehaviour in that field by the United States, require parity of contempt. They both deserve to be treated with equal vigour and lack of enthusiasm.
	Perhaps I may join noble Lords also in congratulating President Obasanjo on his management of the conference and in welcoming the fact that the next conference is to take place in Uganda, where President Museveni, it should be remembered, has brought that country back from the brink following the chaos to which it had been reduced by President Obote and President Amin. If we wanted to be critical, we may all have modest criticisms of both President Obasanjo and President Museveni, but both deserve commendation—President Museveni for his achievements in Uganda and President Obasanjo for having restored democracy in his own country. The latter deserves to be commended also for the role that he played in the combined Commonwealth onslaught on apartheid in South Africa. He was a member of the Eminent Persons Group there.
	Does the noble Baroness accept—I am sure that she will—that the most important aspect of these CHOG meetings is the unique candour with which the Heads of Government from this immense diversity of nations are able to speak to each other, quite unlike anything to be found in any other international meeting? It is that quality that enables them to achieve a surprising degree of unity, as they have done at the end of this conference. Will she therefore encourage that candour to be maintained and sustained?
	Surely the crucial pressure to bring about change in Zimbabwe will ultimately have to come from those front-line states led by Ministers such as President Museveni and President Obasanjo. The interesting parallel is that, at the end of the day, probably the most decisive voice in pushing South Africa toward the ending of apartheid was that of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. The shock of hearing the candour with which she was finally condemning apartheid, joined with all the other efforts that had been sustained over the years, was one of the key factors that made the difference.
	So will the Minister give us the assurance that our Government will continue, candidly as always, to press the leaders of the front-line African states to address this question as vigorously as she knows they must? She has done well so far. Will she please ensure that the effort is maintained with the utmost vigour?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, for his comments. He has, of course, a great deal of experience in these areas and I know that the House will have listened to his words of wisdom. I entirely agree with him about the need to support the work of Presidents Obasanjo and Museveni. In Nigeria we saw for the very first time since independence the successful transition from one civilian administration to another. We really must recognise that. I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the role that President Obasanjo played in that transition. President Museveni, in the leadership role that he has played, has not only brought Uganda back from the brink; he has played an absolutely critical role in ensuring that the HIV/AIDS infection levels in Uganda have fallen dramatically.
	I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the importance of Commonwealth meetings. They are the only international meetings of leaders from such diverse countries in which they work by consensus and each has an equal voice and where candour, as the noble and learned Lord said, is an important ingredient. We have argued consistently that, after the people of Zimbabwe themselves, it is Zimbabwe's neighbours—particularly in SADC, which includes the previous front-line states—that will have the major impact on bringing about change in Zimbabwe.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, if I may, I should like to reiterate the fact that although so many African countries took a different view from ours and were able to argue their case very vigorously, ultimately they were able to reach a unanimous decision on the suspension of Zimbabwe. That is a tribute to the strength of the Commonwealth and indeed a vindication of the Government's policy on this matter. However, can the Minister say whether Zimbabwe has actually left the Commonwealth? We have heard that it is leaving, but has it left? For my part, I take no joy, exhilaration, vindication or satisfaction in the fact that Zimbabwe is leaving the Commonwealth. One wonders whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has a view on the matter. He seems to suggest that if we had acted quicker or done more, Zimbabwe would have left earlier. I am not quite sure whether that is the Opposition's policy.
	If Zimbabwe has left the Commonwealth, what happens now? What happens to the remit of President Obasanjo and his group of six who are to look at the situation? Is that now a dead letter? Who is to try to take the matter forward? Is the whole matter to be left in limbo? Like many other noble Lords, I am sure, I do not think that it is a question of who is in or out of the Commonwealth—the important point is what happens to the Zimbabwean people. If the situation gets even worse as a result of President Mugabe leaving the Commonwealth, there is no reason to be satisfied. Can the Minister please tell us what will happen? Which aid programmes will be affected by Zimbabwe's departure? Does she agree that it is extremely serious? Does she agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, that we must impress on the African states—whose view we must understand; we cannot simply ignore their deeply held views—that they must do their bit as well to bring this situation to a resolution?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend, as always, gets to the heart of the matter. Has Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth? Mugabe says that Zimbabwe has, but the Secretary-General has not yet received a letter informing him that Zimbabwe has done so. Once Zimbabwe formally leaves the Commonwealth a number of practical implications will have to be addressed. My noble friend asks, for example, about aid programmes. Although Zimbabwe would no longer have a right to technical assistance through the Commonwealth, the type of humanitarian aid programme that the British Government are giving to Zimbabwe would continue. Our development programmes are not only with Commonwealth countries.
	As for what happens now, assuming that that letter arrives, and I have no doubt that it will, there will be no remit for the group of six, because Zimbabwe will no longer be in the Commonwealth. However, President Obasanjo has made it clear that he intends to visit Zimbabwe, not necessarily wearing that Commonwealth hat but as a concerned African leader. I think that it will have to be African countries which take this matter forward. I entirely agree with my noble friend. I regret that Mugabe has chosen to take this action because it further isolates Zimbabwe. At the heart of it, it hurts the people of Zimbabwe, not the ruling elite of Zimbabwe.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was in Kenya last week and saw for myself the devastating effect that the advisory travel bans have had and are having on the important tourist industry in that country? Does she agree that that is particularly unfortunate at a time when the new democratic government of Kenya are striving to put the economy back on a sound footing? Does she also agree that if she were an American citizen she would be a lot safer in the middle of the Masai Mara than in the streets of Washington or New York at the present time? More to the point as regards government responsibility, is she aware—because I certainly was not—that although the British travel ban was lifted some time ago, British insurance companies are still not granting travel insurance to people wanting to visit that country? Will she get the appropriate government department to speak to the British insurance association to ensure that we do not have private travel bans in addition to the government ones which have a still more devastating effect on those economies?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I recognise that our travel advice can have a devastating impact on countries that have fragile economies. I have seen it myself, not only in Kenya, but in Tanzania, particularly the impact on Zanzibar. I saw it when I visited Bali last year. However, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we need to provide timely information to our citizens and to take on board the information that we receive. It is a very difficult balance to get right. Noble Lords will recall that the Government were accused of not taking information seriously enough in relation to Bali. When I was consular Minister, I had very many families in my office making accusations that the British Government were not telling them the truth. We have to give information that is as clear and accessible as possible while recognising the possible wider economic impact.
	On the issue of insurance companies, of course it is a commercial decision. However, I shall pass on the noble Lord's concerns. We have ongoing discussions with insurance companies and I shall ensure that his concerns are recognised.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the last time a state left the Commonwealth was when Hendrik Verwoerd took South Africa out in 1961—company that Mr Mugabe may not relish being associated with? Does she also agree that Mugabe could hardly be less amenable to persuasion after he has left the Commonwealth than he has been up until now? While we all welcome the news that President Obasanjo will shortly visit Harare, that will not be a substitute for mechanisms that will bring additional pressure to bear on Mugabe. What mechanisms has the Commonwealth for oversight of any moves that Mugabe or ZANU-PF may make in the future towards democracy, because surely if the supposition is that African countries will bring additional pressure to bear on the Zimbabwe regime, we shall need to know about it and we shall need to have people on the spot who can report back to us and tell the Commonwealth Secretariat what news it can convey to member states?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it is extremely difficult to budge Mugabe. We have followed the situation in Zimbabwe and have become more and more concerned about it. It is clear that this is a president and a government who do not care about what is happening to their own people. They leave it to the United Kingdom and the United States to try to halt the terrible famine that will occur in Zimbabwe next year. At the same time, they roundly abuse both countries.
	As regards mechanisms and oversight, a set of bench-marks were developed by the Commonwealth Secretariat against which to judge Zimbabwe. I have no doubt that those bench-marks still exist. Once Zimbabwe withdraws from the Commonwealth, Commonwealth countries will have embassies rather than high commissions there. I am sure that human rights organisations and others will continue to monitor the situation very carefully indeed, as they are doing at present.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, in welcoming the comments made on the fight against terrorism and the important contribution that the Commonwealth can make in that area, can I take it from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that particular recognition is given to the fact that a number of Commonwealth countries have a particularly valuable role to play in the whole intelligence challenge that is faced in the fight against terrorism at the present time?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not catch the actual question in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord King.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, do the Commonwealth Heads of Government recognise the value of an area which may not have been so important to the Commonwealth in earlier times; namely, the sharing of intelligence and working together in the fight against terrorism, which is now crucially important? Do they also recognise that certain members of the Commonwealth that have not perhaps been closely involved before in the intelligence field now have a particularly valuable role to play?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for that clarification. The Heads of Government made it absolutely clear that it was vital that all Commonwealth members ratify and implement the conventions covering terrorism. Some Commonwealth countries already share intelligence. We are doing that increasingly, particularly with respect to the implications this has, for example, for travel advice. I have no doubt that this is an area where co-operation will continue. The UK is also increasing our bilateral counter-terrorism assistance to key countries in the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth Secretariat is helping other countries with counter-terrorism legislation. Therefore, a number of measures are being implemented, some related to intelligence sharing but some more broadly linked to the broad international counter-terrorism agenda.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, turning away for a moment from the divisive problems created for the Commonwealth by President Mugabe's Zimbabwe, will the Minister say what consideration was given at CHOGM to the Commonwealth education Ministers' education action programme for the Commonwealth that was conceived at the recent conference in Edinburgh, and what reference may there be in the communique—which I have not yet seen—to the degree of acceptance there was for those proposals?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asked that education should feature in the communique. In fact, it features strongly in the declaration. There is an affirmation that education, whether formal or informal, is central to development in any society. There is also a reference in the communique to the Commonwealth education Ministers' conference and the initiative that came from that. Commonwealth Heads of Government clearly listened to the noble Lord.

Science and Politics

Baroness Greenfield: rose to call attention to mechanisms to improve communication between scientists and politicians with a view to better public understanding of scientific policies; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, the astronomer Carl Sagan once said that it was suicide to live in a society dependent on science and technology, where hardly anyone knew anything about science and technology. It is now some three-and-a-half years since the publication of the House of Lords Select Committee report, Science and Society. That committee was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
	In addition, the excellent work of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology continues to provide balanced and objective analysis of science and technology issues to both Houses. Then there is the Royal Society's MP/scientist pairing scheme, a reassuring example of dialogue between the two communities even though the beneficiaries may be only a handful of scientists and MPs each year.
	Since the Jenkin report, a thousand flowers have been blooming—in books, TV programmes, science centres and, indeed, events and fora such as those that we are proud to host at the Royal Institution, where I am the director. Indeed, within the past year, we have held two debates at the Royal Institution to address specifically the problem of communication between scientists and politicians, especially the communication they have on the record, in the eye of the media. In our most recent debate on 20th November, everyone pooled their ideas: scientists, politicians, along with some representatives of the media and, most importantly, the general public. We attempted not only to tease out the specific issues but to see whether there was any way in which we could resolve them.
	The number of noble Lords wishing to speak in this debate is surely testimony to an inescapable issue: that there is still insufficient dialogue between politicians and scientists, and a lack of understanding of their respective agendas. Only a few weeks ago the "Today" programme, and indeed "PM" on Radio 4 at the end of the day, covered the important story of how, in the words of the political correspondent of The Times,
	"More than 100 leading scientists have made a once-in-a-generation appeal to Tony Blair to save British science from a tide of neglect and abuse that is driving the brightest young brains abroad".
	This letter arose from an initiative "Sense about Science" organised by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I shall leave him to amplify, as he wishes, its background and content.
	This lack of adequate communication between politicians and scientists impacts on a public who remain confused about where the scientists' role ends, and where that of the politicians begins, and vice versa. Small wonder then that the public are not comforted by the efforts of scientists and politicians to handle crises encompassing science and technology such as the MMR vaccine, mobile phones, GM foods and BSE.
	For example, in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, into the BSE crisis, three major themes were drawn out as contributing to the disaster. First, decisions were apparently being made for political expediency rather than with a premium on public health. Secondly, all the decisions were made in secret with no transparency. Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, described a "culture of sedation": one where false reassurances of certainty were given, where certainty did not exist.
	At the moment each side, the politicians and the scientists, tends to approach the other with the attitude, "Here is a problem; you solve it". Politicians expect a simple answer from the experts, while the experts expect politicians to solve the problem for society that their far-from-simple answer generates. This two-way shifting of the buck sends out signals to the general public that politicians and scientists are not working together as seamlessly and effectively as they might. I suggest that this bottleneck in communication between scientists and politicians—or lack of it—lies not only in the absence of opportunity, but in a discrepancy of agenda.
	For example, scientists will tend to take a long-term view, embarking on studies that may extend over some five or 10 years, or even more. Politicians, on the other hand, with their limited tenure of office, need answers quickly and have a time scale of three years or usually much less.
	Scientists are often portrayed, and sometimes even portray themselves, as the guardians of a codified fixed body of knowledge. But that knowledge is constantly being re-examined: it evolves, and is often transformed, through time.
	Scientists are used to admitting to uncertainty, and are most comfortable painting in shades of grey. Issues are not proved categorically or disproven overnight; rather there are endless iterations on a subject with different opinions, interpretations, redefinitions and further experimentation, so that gradually a truth will emerge. But it is always a provisional truth, always open and vulnerable to the next finding. One topical example comes from Professor Simon Murch, who had recently subscribed to the view that the MMR vaccine might be linked to autism. In the light of further studies, he now considers it safe. Some quarters of the media attempted to portray him as going back on his word, but he was accurately reflecting the way in which scientific opinion is driven by data and can change as those data accumulate.
	Politicians, on the other hand, are under sometimes understandable pressure from their electorate to demand an immediate yes/no answer. For them, there should be no uncertainty in interpretation of what has happened to date, and no element of risk regarding the future. Indeed, one might even think of politicians, especially those in government along with the Civil Service, as being in the business of minimising risk, whereas, for the scientist, every experiment involves the risk of their hypothesis being wrong. If there were no risk, there would be no point in doing the experiment.
	Scientists will use the tools of experimentation to reach a solution. Meanwhile, politicians tend to the audit, the consultation and the focus group, and are driven by difficulties arising from an undesirable situation. The agenda for scientists in its purest form is mainly curiosity-driven—to be proactive rather than reactive to an existing crisis.
	Another important difference is that scientists usually think of themselves as specialists, whereas the politician has to be a generalist. Scientists are indeed accountable to other colleagues only within their relatively narrow specialist area, whereas politicians answer to the general public. That is one reason why the issue of communication of science to the general public still sits very uneasily with many scientists, yet is high on the agenda for politicians. As a result, scientists will communicate in seemingly idiosyncratic terminology and jargon, which means that they and their work are not easily tractable to the agenda of politicians, who in turn reach for easily understandable answers and soundbites, particularly those that can play out well in the media. Such soundbites can appear in turn as gross oversimplifications to scientists.
	On top of those fundamental discrepancies in agenda and mindset, there is then the problem of actual opportunity for dialogue or communication. For example, speaking at the debate last month at the Royal Institution, Professor John Lawton, the chief executive of the National Environment Research Council—NERC—drew a comparison between his current position and when he was the chairman of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. In that latter capacity, he had access to a Minister allegedly whenever he liked, and he regularly took advantage of that conduit. In contrast, as chief executive of NERC, he revealed that he had never been invited to speak to a Minister, even though he now has a much wider grasp of a whole host of environmental issues.
	Professor Lawton's experience surely indicates that Ministers are more interested in speaking to powerful lobby groups than to scientific bodies. Now imagine the plight of a grass-root scientist who is not the head of a formal organisation, and who would therefore find it even harder to access or influence government thinking. For example, imagine a scheme—one that I have mused on myself—for promoting the democratisation of science through universities. The idea, which I must confess that I have not ventilated until now, would be to make maximal use of the vacant lecture theatres in evenings and weekends within each university, to host the local community in a scenario that would enable them to meet their local scientists and join together in talks, panel discussions and debates.
	The whole point of such a scheme would be that the scientist would gain valuable experience in communicating with the general public and, in turn, the public would no longer regard universities as remote ivory towers, but rather, as they should be, key features of the community landscape.
	By fostering a nationwide local and regional dialogue between the general public and the scientist at each university throughout the country, much of the fear and paranoia of science might start to dissolve. Science would acquire, literally and metaphorically, a human face; science itself would be truly mainstreamed in society. The dream would be that a science event could be as exciting and interesting as going to the cinema or a concert.
	But suppose that I, as a grass-root scientist, had had such an idea. Where would I turn? Perhaps to the Department of Trade and Industry, or would it be the Department for Education and Skills or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? After all, surely it is that latter department that would be the most obvious source of funding to subsidise overtime or teaching remission of university scientists participating in such an outreach scheme to the public. It would not help me, of course, and I might be baffled, standing remote from the machinery of government and the political world, that none of the departments had "science" in the title. And even were I to approach one of the three departments at random, how could I be assured that there was active communication between them to expedite a project that might well fall in the purlieu of them all?
	At the moment, the best for which a scientist might hope is to be available on standby, in response mode, if and when approached. Indeed, I have experienced helping in the production of two government reports, one on creative and cultural education, and the other on women in science. As a result, I realise just how important and effective such initiatives can be, and am sure that many other scientists would relish the chance to suggest further topics where they perceive a need. How would the scientists themselves set in train any new initiative? Where and what is the procedural machinery? If it is in place already, it is not part of the science community culture, and is not a familiar reference point in coffee-time conversation in university departments.
	Meanwhile, the problem for politicians is different, in that for the most part their lack of a science background means that they need to trust the experts utterly and unconditionally. But surely a grasp of the basic concepts of scientific method, agenda and some key facts would enable them to delegate more appropriately and effectively. As it stands, the ensuing disconnection between power and responsibility is as dangerous as it is undesirable. The more politicians and scientists talk to each other, the more the culture, constraints and concepts of science—and, by the same token, of politics—will rub off, and become respectively familiar territory.
	A further difficulty, however, is that such an agenda does not fit well with party politics. It is notable that there was no mention of science in the Queen's Speech. The Government presumably do not want to debate issues that cut across traditional political ideologies and would be most appropriate to a large number of free votes. Cloning, fertility and end-of-life issues will become debates of conscience, and are therefore much more difficult for maintaining a party line. Because such debates are often not held until there is a crisis, legislation is often brought in too late, and based on a less than optimal familiarity with the subject. That situation is further aggravated by a temptation, one fuelled by the media, for opposition parties simply to criticise the Government in order to get coverage rather than to establish the scientific truth.
	The critical issue is that politicians and government, in this instance, should not be the followers of public opinion, which in turn bases its knowledge of science on journalists who in many cases cannot lay claim to any expertise in the area. Instead, surely it is the scientists who should be playing a more proactive and central role. Of course, scientists cannot become politicians or tell politicians what to do, any more than those who sit full-time in Parliament could be card-carrying experts on the sophisticated and fast-moving developments in information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. But only by the previously disparate constituencies joining together can beneficial and informed decisions be made.
	The Government have made some great strides recently, not least the University Challenge scheme, and the science and engineering ambassadors scheme, which enables scientists to go into the classrooms and inspire and be role models to schoolchildren. Of course, the increase in science funding and infrastructure has made a huge difference, not only to scientific research but in helping to lift scientists' morale. Although those are very impressive moves, there is none the less still the central issue of how to integrate science more fully into the mainstream of society, and hence into the politicians' mindset and policy toolkit. As the Jenkin report acknowledged, there is a lack of trust in science still, especially when associated with government or industry. What we need now is to think of schemes that will expedite more interaction, and as widely as possible.
	The situation is pressing. We urgently need to seek ways in which knowledge is transferred into innovation and wealth. That topic is explored in the Lambert review, and indeed, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, might also help to alleviate the vexed issue of university funding. We might well look to other countries. In India, for example, scientists and technologists are held in great esteem, and that country is beginning to reap tremendous benefits. Similarly in America, the culture of technology transfer and the mainstreaming and understanding of science in universities is generating serious income. The annual licensing survey of the Association of University Technology Managers shows that total university income in the USA from patents increased from 699 million dollars in 1997 to 1.07 billion dollars in 2001.
	In the UK, however, universities are also increasingly exploiting their scientific discoveries commercially. The recent report by Nottingham University Business School on technology transfer in universities for 2002–03 describes a significant increase in staffing numbers, of spin-outs financed through the University Challenge scheme, invention disclosures, patents issued and licences executed. Licensing income is still at some £22.4 million. In addition, high-tech and biotech industries are realising that people are the only sustainable asset. Although those industries make investments in university research partly because of tax credits, they do so primarily because of the quality of the talent base. Such a talent base will flourish only—indeed, income to universities from IP will grow only—in a society that is not just sympathetic to but actively supportive of science.
	Accordingly, three possible ideas come immediately to mind. The first might be a government-organised website targeted at any scientist in a university-based department, enabling them to send in any bright ideas or thoughts where they know there would be a one-stop shop to the government departments. Such a website, one might hope, could also act as a forum whereby the suggestions would be open for other scientists to comment, and one could start a virtual debate between anyone who felt interested. That dialogue, of course, should and could be completely transparent. Ideally, there could even be just one governmental website for science that also brings together all the science Select Committee reports, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology reports and commissioned reports.
	A second idea would be to develop a scheme whereby the local scientists, again in the universities, have regular meetings with their respective MPs. Perhaps that happens already but, to the best of my knowledge, not on a systematic or nation-wide basis. An MP could pay a monthly visit to a different science department in turn in his or her university and/or each university could appoint an MP liaison officer or a science policy committee. Perhaps one of the outcomes of such communication could be the organisation of joint events for the local community, such as I outlined earlier.
	Thirdly, from time to time, perhaps the Government would even subsidise, or at least look kindly upon, events such as those that we organise at the Royal Institution or which are organised elsewhere, where panels of scientists and politicians could debate with each other and the general public could be present, with no holds barred and on neutral territory.
	Those are some thoughts simply to illustrate that it is possible to offer constructive ideas. Above all, it is important not simply to shake one's head in resignation at a difficult situation. The situation is difficult because we are entering a new era; one where science is central to our lives as never before. This new era requires a change. I am not suggesting that we transform the respective agendas of scientists and politicians; but let us establish a way of maximising the overlap between those agendas for the public good, and do so in a way that the public can appreciate. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on initiating this important debate on an issue which she and I have been discussing for some time. Our dialogue began when we were both at an international conference where two parallel strands of discussion—one on science and one on politics—were brought together in the hope of stimulating productive debate. In fact, there were heated and acrimonious exchanges between the two teams, with the noble Baroness and I on opposing sides. Each side blamed the other for public misunderstanding of whatever were the scientific hot topics of the day. It was a bruising encounter with little understanding of the difficulties encountered in either the political or the scientific spheres.
	Since then the noble Baroness has, as she described, been a powerful figure in leading and creating detente between the two groups. Her various initiatives at the Royal Institution, in which she has been kind enough to include me, have been promoting the kind of productive dialogue which was the main aim of the original conference. I say as a complete layman with some diffidence in this distinguished list of speakers, since I struggled with GCE level biology, I strongly believe that we must improve trust and communication between scientists and politicians so that we do not end up living in a 21st-century version of a Luddite society. That would be a society where scientific discovery was automatically greeted by public fear and suspicion to the detriment of not only our excellent science base, but to the quality of life for us all.
	My main experience has been in health policy. In that area, there have been some good examples of appropriate co-operation between medical science and the legislators and regulators—in vitro fertilisation is one that springs to mind. Another, in which your Lordships more recently played a positive role, was the development of a statutory framework for stem cell research in which UK scientists were again at the forefront of potentially life-changing discoveries. We parliamentarians have helped them negotiate a working environment which in general is accepted by the public.
	However, despite those positive examples and similar ones in other fields, recent surveys now show that more than half the public think that scientists are experimenting without adequately assessing the risks of their work. In other words, science is seen as moving too fast for public comfort and politicians stand accused perhaps of dishonesty or inefficiency in trying to regulate it. How do we address that?
	First, the scientists and the politicians, as the noble Baroness said, must learn to trust each other more—both in communicating with each other and what is said severally or together to a wider audience. We must try to respect each others' priorities and foibles. I am aware of the point raised by the noble Baroness on the political desire for speedy results and cast-iron certainty. Equally, I ask the scientists to be tolerant of politicians' ignorance even when, as in my case, ignorance is not compounded by hostility. I vividly remember that, shortly after I became a Minister of Health in 1997, my right honourable friend Alan Milburn, who later became Secretary of State, and I had a meeting with an extremely senior scientific adviser to the Government. He told us in no uncertain terms that as we were both arts graduates it was unlikely that we would understand the fundamentals of many of the science-based policies which he and colleagues might be promoting, let alone be able to represent them adequately to Parliament and the public.
	If I had drawn breath more quickly, I should have responded that it was a major part of his responsibility, as a government scientific adviser, to make sure that we did understand, and that it was at least part of his responsibility to communicate directly with the public and not to shelter behind us inadequate politicians. Of course there are many distinguished scientists, and many of them are taking part in this debate, who are excellent communicators. But perhaps even they would acknowledge that the first instinct of many of their colleagues is to shelter behind the walls of academe when faced with controversy.
	The matter is all about risk—my second salient concept after trust—the immediate risk to any individual's reputation and, more dangerously, the public risk of trying to communicate uncertainty to a fearful and sceptical audience who are often stirred up by an alarmist media. I call this, at its crudest, the "Today" programme trap. The distinguished scientist is asked: "Can you guarantee there is no risk?"—to which there is not a categorical yes or no answer. The expert then appears to be communicating only frightening uncertainty, and the policymaker who has to act on that uncertainty appears yet again to be shifty and unreliable.
	I am not suggesting that either politicians or scientists should be falsely didactic, still less promote unreliable reassurance. But it is in all our interests to develop a united and coherent strategy about how we communicate risk. Recently I have been encouraged to read a monograph based on a lecture by Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, called Connecting People to Science, whose top-line message was that everybody should be more open and direct about the uncertainties. He also offers readily understood scientific tools for describing and assessing uncertainty—for example tabulating a range of views on any topic so that, to quote Dr Campbell,
	"this can be a way that one can see on a scale of dealing with public discussion about scientists who are out on a limb by putting them demonstrably in the context of their peers".
	In my inexpert judgment, that would be a useful way to handle some of the extreme views on, for example, the MMR vaccine.
	This is a short debate and I must draw my remarks to a conclusion. But I find that that kind of cool application of objective tools to potentially misunderstood uncertainties both helpful and easy to understand. That is why today's debate is so important. If popular concerns that scientists are taking too many risks distorts policy decisions and valuable progress, we shall all lose.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing what is clearly, judging by the number of speakers, a very hot topic. The opening speech from the noble Baroness gave a good indication of the ground about which she has been thinking deeply for some time. I am grateful for her comments on science and society and I shall return to that. I also welcome her endorsement of POST—the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology. It produces a stream of valuable, informative papers for politicians and others. Furthermore, the Science Media Centre is playing an important role in bridging the gulf between journalists and scientists and the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, played a key role in setting that up.
	I see two separate questions. First, how does advice from scientists reach Ministers? Are new mechanisms necessary, as called for by the Motion? Secondly, how do Ministers respond to that advice. Regarding the first question, although Ministers have many sources of advice, a great deal depends on the standing and authority of the Government's principal scientific advisers—especially that of the Chief Scientific Adviser. Taking part in the debate is a former CSA, the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, and I warmly endorse the appointment of his successor, Sir David King.
	However, I share the view, as stated by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave when we debated the report Science and Society, that a mistake was made 10 years ago in moving the office of the OST out of the Cabinet Office and into the DTI. When it was in the Cabinet Office, the CSA was directly responsible to the Prime Minister. I believe, for example, that the problems we experienced with foot and mouth disease would not have occurred if the CSA had been in his previous position.
	The issue is doubly important now in that we have a second senior person at the DTI—the chairman of Research Councils UK. I welcome the appointment of Sir Keith O'Nions to that post, but I see difficulty in terms of the tensions and differences ahead if both senior roles remain closeted within the DTI. It is right for RCUK, but I believe that the decision should be taken to return the OST to the Prime Minister's department.
	The second issue concerns the other end of the question. What are the political pressures on Ministers that seem to make it so difficult for them to take a supportive line on scientific advice which may be controversial? The noble Baroness drew attention to the remarkable letter signed by 114 prominent research scientists, who complained bitterly about their sense of betrayal and the lack of support for their research, particularly in the area of GM crops. Last year, the Prime Minister made a highly publicised speech at the Royal Society. Half the hall was filled by the media and it attracted wide attention. But what have we heard since then? The answer is: almost total silence. The result was that in October an article appeared in the Times Educational Supplement headlined:
	"The GM debate cut down by threats and abuse".
	Of course, the issue of GM is not alone. The list of scientific controversies is a long one.
	Therefore, I believe that one must ask: what are the pressures on Ministers? The answer is that the public remain fearful, as the noble Lord said. Here, I return to the subject of Science and Society, in which we argued that the lack of trust or understanding between the public and scientists—it is a question of scientists understanding the public as much as the other way round—lies at the heart of the problem. It is there that we must direct our attention.
	I believe that the real answer lies in schools. The teaching of science over many decades has contributed to the problem rather than helped to solve it. I want to draw the House's attention to the new syllabus—"Science for the 21st Century"—now being produced for 13 to 16 year-olds, in which an entirely new approach is being adopted. It is currently being piloted and I believe that it will turn out to be the long-term solution to the problem that we are addressing.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as chairman of Sense About Science—an organisation set up to promote the evidence-based approach to scientific issues.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned in her excellent and most stimulating speech the letter from the 114 scientists, which we helped to organise. They protested about the silence of the Government in the face of blatant misrepresentation of the results of the field-scale evaluation trials and mentioned that morale was low. I do not presume to speak for them. If I did, the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Turnberg, who signed the letter, would immediately put me right. However, perhaps I may give my personal opinion as to why morale is low, despite the fact that we have an excellent science Minister and the Government have considerably increased the science budget.
	What is wrong is the Government's concern to appease the anti-science lobby groups. I shall give two examples. First, recently, the government chief scientist, for whom I have immense admiration, wrote to the press, obviously reflecting official policy, saying that the Government were neither for nor against genetic modification. Why is that so? Not a single leading plant biologist has any doubts that it is a technology that offers great potential benefits. GM cotton, for example, already benefits 5 million small third-world farmers. If he had said that the Government were neither for nor against particular applications, that would have been understandable. Whether an application is beneficial or harmful depends entirely on the circumstances, as, indeed, the trials have shown. However, to be neutral about the technology is like being neither for nor against science. Science, too, can be misapplied.
	I turn to the second example. The Government set up the AEBC—the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. Whom did they appoint as the lay members of the council? The answer is: the chair of Greenpeace; the chair of the Soil Association; another representative from Genewatch, a clone of Greenpeace; and another dedicated opponent of GM crops. They are supposed to represent the public when, in fact, they represent highly political lobby groups, ideologically opposed to GM, which do not give a hoot about evidence. No wonder the consultation exercise was such a fiasco. It is no help to scientists to bring dedicated opponents of science into the heart of policy-making. Appeasement simply strengthens the opposition.
	I want to make one more point, not related to the subject matter of the letter. Scientists have been told that science should be more democratic, that they must take more notice of public fears and communicate better. I believe that that current conventional wisdom is at least partly misconceived. Science is not a democratic activity any more than is art. Galileo once famously said of Church interference with the pursuit of truth:
	"Why, this would be as if an absolute despot, being neither a physician nor an architect but knowing himself free to command, should undertake to administer medicines and erect buildings according to his whim—at grave peril of his poor patients' lives, and the speedy collapse of his edifices".
	The same would be true if the demos were substituted for the despot.
	As for public misunderstandings, to blame scientists is largely to misinterpret their role. Of course scientists should be as open as possible. It is wonderful when someone such as the late Peter Medawar or, to put it in present terms, people such as Richard Dawkins or Robert Winston enthuse the public about science. But communication is not the primary job of scientists. That is to do good science. Einstein was not a worse scientist because he did not speak like Demosthenes or write like Jane Austin. The way in which the public learn about science is, and will always primarily be, through the media. Scares about GM food, pesticides, the MMR vaccine and mobile phone masts are not the fault of scientists but of the media.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I join the expressions of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for initiating this debate. We were undergraduate scientists together at the University of Oxford in the early 1970s. I do not believe that we met, although there was a well worn path between Merton and St Hilda's in those days. While the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, went on to be one of the foremost scientists of her generation, my science remained largely at the equivalent level of the amoeba or the speck of plankton as I wandered off into the outer darkness which some, at least, associate with theology.
	The point that I wish to make concerns the impact of science on modern western culture and, increasingly, on our global culture. The historian John Roberts once identified three key features which have shaped modern western culture. The first, he said, was science and technology; the second, the idea of the individual; and the third, simply the sheer power of modern western culture—a power which derives its main economic, technological and military strength from science itself.
	Of those three shaping features, two are centrally concerned with science. Whether or not we recognise it—I agree that most people do not—to echo the comments of the noble Baroness, science is mainstream in our society. We easily forget that modern experimental science is a relatively recent arrival on the stage of history in 16th and 17th century Europe. Paradoxically, it seems to have required a break from ecclesiastical authority—one thinks, indeed, of Galileo. It also drew strength from a revised doctrine of creation, which freed itself from the rationalism and sacramentalism of the mediaeval view and emphasised, in Judaeo-Christian terms, that creation was rational but, because it was the product of God's free will, it had to be investigated. One could not predict what one would find.
	As such, science had to break free from some well established habits of thinking. For example, for 2,000 years astronomers assumed that the motion of the planets must be circular because, a priori, circular motion was the most natural and regular until Kepler came along, puzzling over some discrepancies in the data for the movement of Mars, and realised that an elliptical orbit would account for the facts. He wrote about that using mystical phrases of great rapture as he reflected upon the mystery of the Creator's hands, laid bare by human inquiry.
	If we are to improve the public standing and understanding of science we need to start by recapturing something of that sense of celebration of science on its own terms, as a public good in its own right, just as we admire great art or, indeed, great sporting success. Science is not there just to supply the fuel of economic or military might or to help us live longer—God help us. It is a human achievement of the first order which shapes and transforms our culture. It gives a slightly odd impression that the Minister responsible is located in the DTI—I realise that there are many questions over where the Minister should be located—which can feed that rather over-pragmatic view of science.
	That leads to the view that science should not be over-regulated. That, indeed, tends to kill the true spirit of scientific discovery as it did in Soviet Russia. There needs to be a broad public debate about science policies and the implications of scientific advance, particularly in sensitive areas such as genetic research. With hindsight, feeding animal remains to herbivores should have raised more debate before the disaster of BSE was upon us. Patience and caution with GM foods seems sensible, if frustrating for some, until we know more, although it needs to be considered case by case.
	However, let us not reinforce by unnecessary suspicion what C.P. Snow used to call "the two cultures", with science and broader culture hardly in conversation. That conversation needs to have two partners. In a democracy there is a need to listen openly to what voters and taxpayers think. For example, although I agree that the lay voice in determining resource allocation should be strictly limited, it seems to me that scientific communities should not be too reluctant to encourage research into areas upon which mainstream science can tend to look down. Wider society has a growing interest in alternative medicine and complementary therapies, for example. If the head of Glaxo is correctly reported as believing that up to half the recipients of conventional drugs do not benefit from them, it does at least strengthen the case for research into a full range of possible treatments. That is not necessarily to pander to the politicised groups to which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, rightly referred. Perhaps the Minister might remark on that in his reply.
	The importance of giving science and the scientific community a clearer and more prominent place in society in whatever way can be devised—including, therefore, in our political life—is greater than ever. In some respects, not least in the media, we seem to be sinking into a world where perceptions matter more than truth, a world which Groucho Marx memorably captured when he said, "Are you going to believe what you see or what I am telling you?"
	Science educates our eyes and minds and has brought great benefits to our lives. We should celebrate its achievements and, as a society, take great pride in them. That is the beginning of the wisdom on this subject.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, in her excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, spoke about the differences in outlook between scientists and politicians. I agree that by their very nature scientists tend to take a long-term, more expert view and politicians a shorter-term view. But it was ever thus. It is inherent in the nature of democracy.
	However, there is a more basic problem relating to communication between scientists and politicians, which needs addressing; that is, neither science nor politics speaks with a single voice. On virtually every science issue there are competing claims and different views, not only on questions of science. There are diverse views on related matters such as ethics, the environment, ecology, finance, social considerations, and sometimes there is just plain personal prejudice. That does not apply only to scientists. Politicians are equally at odds with each other. As noble Lords know, it is possible that the Government may not have a single view on a scientific issue despite all the efforts at joined-up government.
	So the communication problem is not only between scientists and politicians but between scientist and scientist and politician and politician. We need look no further than the MMR vaccine dispute. Some of us may want scientific matters to be decided by scientists and political matters to be decided by politicians. But life does not fit into those neat compartments. Science and politics have become intermingled because of the perceived risks. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, spoke of that.
	At the end of the day decisions and choices have to be made. A politician or a scientist has to decide. They have to assess and judge the competing claims and choose. That is what they were elected or appointed to do and that is what they are paid to do.
	It is in that process of assessing, choosing and deciding between those often opposing views that all the various organisations which have been set up to inform, facilitate and help make those choices, are so valuable. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), the Foundation for Science and Technology, the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, the British Association, the Royal Institution, Dr King's office, the scientific advisers and the Select Committees of both Houses all play a valuable role in helping scientists and politicians assess competing claims and make a choice.
	But there is more to be done. Winning the argument is not enough. Not only do you have to win the argument; you have to win the hearts and minds. That is where the 1,000 blooms mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, do invaluable work. Winning hearts and minds involves tricky and difficult matters such as trust, being perceived as honest, working for the public interest rather than private or vested interests, keeping promises and learning from mistakes.
	An enormous amount of work goes into achieving that. Work also goes into assessing the different views of scientist and scientist and politician and politician. I hope that the Minister will agree that all that work must be an instrument for good because it provides a mechanism for improved communication between scientists and politicians. It is an instrument which will help to win the hearts and minds of the public, resulting in more public confidence and trust in the scientific policies and the decisions made on the public's behalf. I think that that is the whole purpose of the question asked by the noble Baroness.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Greenfield on securing this important debate and being the catalyst in bringing together scientists and politicians.
	The UK is one of the world's leading countries in science and scientific research, as evidenced by the impressive number of Nobel prizes awarded to our scientists in the past and particularly this year. The difficulties between scientists and politicians have been expertly outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield. The excellence of our scientists has not been translated into large-scale manufacture of scientific inventions in the UK. Too often our innovative scientific discoveries, such as the computer and computerised scanning machines used in medical diagnosis, have been manufactured abroad with little or no economic benefit to the nation. The Lambert report has outlined some solutions. But one cause of this discrepancy lies in the inadequate communication between research scientists and politicians as well as the different interests of the two groups.
	The language of scientists is technical and difficult for the non-scientist to understand. As most politicians are lawyers, it is not surprising that communication between scientists and politicians is at best limited, particularly in the light of the ethos of science and the strategy of politicians to gain support from the public, especially those who would exercise their vote through the ballot box.
	I shall draw on the experience of communication between medical scientists and other professionals, including politicians, to illustrate an increasingly effective communications strategy that can be adopted by research scientists in non-medical fields. Of course, I admit that health, and in particular the NHS, attracts public attention easily because it affects the lives of people more overtly than basic scientific research. But that perception can be improved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, has outlined.
	In the NHS, medical and scientific terms are kept to the essential minimum in written reports and in discussions between clinical medical and non-medical managerial staff. Awareness of significant issues in medical science when applied to patient care has clearly improved over the past six years. The dissemination of these reports on easily accessible computer websites such as those of the Department of Health, the Royal Colleges and the professional associations, has made it easy for the public to read them. As a result, questions are asked by constituents of their local MP and newspapers also focus on issues relating to diagnostic tests, treatment regimes and the outcomes of treatment. Whether these websites influence a better understanding of scientific policy is debatable, but they are useful for getting the public to consider scientific advances that affect their lives and well-being.
	Next, local Members of Parliament meet regularly with NHS primary care trust chairs and chief executives in Merseyside. These meetings focus on the implementation of improvements for the benefit of patients. MPs are very supportive of the work done by PCTs and demonstrate their commitment by asking questions of health Ministers in Parliament, such as on cigarette advertising and smoking in public places.
	The parallel to this type of contact and communication in basic science would involve heads of science departments in universities meeting their local MPs in order to explain their work and to emphasise important issues that can be pursued in Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, focused on that aspect. Apart from the usual concerns, these meetings could focus on the findings of scientific research done locally. The application of such research would be of interest to all informed people, including MPs.
	The positive results of this level of involvement are clearly seen in Parliament. New Peers from the world of scientific research appointed to the House of Lords would strengthen links between Parliament and politicians and scientists. The Science and Technology Committees of both Houses of Parliament would no doubt respond positively when contacted with proposals for discussion on scientific policies by universities, scientific academies and the Royal Society.
	Finally, the proliferation of all-parliamentary groups on various medically related issues should serve as an encouragement to scientists and science-related charities as well as august scientific bodies to lobby MPs and Peers.
	I look forward to the Minister giving his view on how some of these lines of communication can be beneficial to a better understanding between scientists and politicians.

Lord Waldegrave of North Hill: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for the debate.
	I start by picking up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chan—and thoroughly agreeing with it; namely, if we are to have an appointed House of Lords, surely an ideal way to bring forward leading scientists and technologies is by strengthening the already powerful voices already in the Chamber. In my five minutes I want to make two points: one institutional point and one anecdotal.
	I shall deal with my institutional point first. I have the honour to be the president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. My role is exactly as described by my title: I preside while others do the work. Mr Richard Page MP has recently taken over as chairman from Mr Ian Gibson MP, who has been absolutely admirable for the past three or four years. I am sure that Richard Page will do an equally good job. I would like to mention Alan Whitehouse and Annabel Lloyd who do the day-to-day work. Among other things, they produce the excellent magazine, Science in Parliament. That enables me to make my first point.
	If we look in Science in Parliament, on page 64 we find in the Science Diary a plethora of very good organisations in this country, which do excellent work, with lists of admirable meetings bringing politicians, scientists, engineers and academics together. There is the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee itself, the Royal Society and the National Institution, over which the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, presides.
	So my first message is that we should not invent more institutions or reinvent the wheel, but that we should put new tyres, if necessary, on the wheels we have. These are excellent institutions. The meetings listed on these back pages go right across the spectrum of what any intelligent group of people would want to see discussed between politicians, scientists and technologists. So if there is more money to be found and more energy to be expended, let us use it in revitalising those institutions which already carry great loyalties and have great achievements behind them.
	The second of my interests, or hats that I wear today, is as chairman of the Trustees of the National Museum of Science and Industry, known to most people as the Science Museum. I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, that, fundamentally, politicians respond to an educated population in these areas. No more powerful institution exists in this country for the education of the population in science and technology than the Science Museum, with its great family of museums: in York—the railway museum; and in Bradford, the photographic, film and television museum.
	However, we have a problem. I must mention it in passing. We are presently funded by the Government on the basis that we would get, after pre-entry, about 1.8 million more visitors. In total, we have about 3 million visitors, which is a success for the Government's policy, but it means that there is a tremendous strain on all the modern interactive exhibits and functions we have in those museums which are targeted at introducing children. We have 1.5 million children passing through the museum every year. The exhibits and so on are getting worn out. I welcome the fact that we are overwhelmed with people, but we must be funded for the level of success that the Government's own policy has produced.
	I pass on quickly before we get into trouble with the Treasury. But the point is a real one: the Science Museum's origins were in helping science teachers to teach science in schools. They used to come to the Science Museum and borrow exhibits to take to the classroom. We do it in rather more modern ways now. We have millions of hits on our websites and so on. The power of that institution for good in educating the population in science is still very great.
	I turn to my anecdotal evidence. The Chief Scientific Adviser, who has rightly been referred to, should in my view amuse himself by developing a code for Ministers on how to interact with science. The first thing he should say to Ministers dealing with science is, "Pay no attention to me as chief scientist, distinguished though I am—even if I am the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford—because I am now a former scientist. I am your adviser, so I am not practising science".
	Secondly, he should say, "You should pay a great deal of attention to me in finding the scientists to whom you should listen. Do not allow your generalist civil servants or me to mediate. Go out and listen to them yourselves". Then he should say, "Find the troublesome ones. Find the outlier, who all the chaps and chapesses in the Royal Society say is a little potty", because just every now and then he or she turns out to be right. It is quite a good idea to listen to them. Sometimes they are potty, but often they are not. Frequently they are like Galileo, who was wrong about most things, but was right about one very important thing. So, it is very important, not to over-listen to outliers, but to listen to them.
	One should then seek to protect oneself—as one will always want to as a politician—not in the bogus authority of a single scientific view which never exists, but by laying an open audit trail of how one would reach the rational decision. That is the best protection one can have. Remember never to talk about "100 per cent", "total certainty", or to say that anything is "totally safe". Finally, remember that one cannot get the scientists to take the decision; that is your job.

Lord May of Oxford: My Lords, applications of advances in scientific understanding have offered and continue to offer many possibilities for making life better in both developed and developing countries. But, as the past century has shown, they also run the risk of unintended adverse consequences, of which climate change and diminishing biological diversity are but two among several. So the real question is how do we learn to do a better job of asking which doors to open and which doors to leave closed?
	In all such decisions, scientific facts and scientific uncertainties set the stage, putting constraints on the possible choices. Ideally, a drama of public debate and democratic choice is then played out on that stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that science has a special role in framing the stage. But science has no special voice in making the choices, which usually rest on values, beliefs and feelings.
	I take a more up-beat view than many of the previous speakers in the debate in that I believe the UK public—or, to be more accurate, the many different UK publics—and the present UK Government, including our excellent science Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, have done rather well in framing and openly conducting recent debates, for example, on stem cell research, on aspects of new methods of genetic modification of crops and much else. Lapsing into my characteristic mode of academic patronising utterance, I would give them an A-/B+. That has to be read against the fact that I am not a victim of grade inflation and that I would give most other countries a C or a D or, in some notable cases, a resounding F.
	Indeed, pausing for a commercial while at the same time confessing an interest, I believe that the Royal Society in particular has played an active—and sometimes an aggressive and energetic—part in some of these debates. Even so, the best such debates remain clouded by at least three kinds of misunderstanding.
	The first misunderstanding is that the public do not trust scientists. People have always distrusted "the new", but in earlier times they expressed their distrust in a greatly more draconian manner—for instance, in the burning of Bruno. Galileo, who has been referred to repeatedly in the debate, merely got shut in his house and was asked to mumble the truth under his breath. A couple of centuries ago there were riots in the streets when vaccination first appeared.
	Many recent polls show that the general public believe that,
	"scientists and engineers make a valuable contribution to society"—
	84 per cent according to one poll—and that,
	"scientists want to make life better for the average person"—
	64 per cent according to the same poll. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, reminded the House, the same people worry that the pace of scientific advice today is too fast for the Government to keep up with effective oversight and regulation. That is a worry that strikes me as sensible.
	The second misunderstanding is that people would worry less if only they knew more about science. In fact, polls—especially polls in different countries of the European Union—show that the more the general citizenry know about science the more they worry. As I am sometimes misunderstood, I hasten to add that I am not advocating that we therefore educate people less in science; quite the contrary. The finding makes a great deal of sense. The more you know about science, the more you worry about unintended consequences.
	The third and most difficult misunderstanding was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, at the outset—that is, the widely held feeling that science is about certainty. After all, that is how we meet it in school; mostly in university; certainly on quiz shows. You cannot run a quiz show without there being a lack of ambiguity in the answers. But, in its essence, science is much more about asking questions than about certain answers.
	That is not to say that the result of many past questions, systematically pursued through fact-based observations and experiments, is knowledge that today is effectively certain—the second law of thermodynamics; the inverse square law of gravitation; that HIV causes AIDS. The problem is that many of the contemporary issues that bear upon us—should we worry about mobile phones; will GM crops further intensify agriculture and harm the environment; can adult cells deliver the benefits we look to from embryonic stem cells?—lie at or beyond the frontiers of knowledge. Here it is vital that we are clear about what is known, what questions remain open and how we are seeking to address them.
	The problem is not helped by people—many of them well intentioned—who derive absolute certainty from fixed ideological positions that override any experimental fact. But it is on this cluttered, messy stage that the debates of choice must be conducted. I believe that the world will be a better place for all of us by advancing such debates in an open and committed manner.

Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, the seminal Science and Society report also revealed something quite sinister. It recognised that if scientists continue to be vilified in the media and by pressure groups, people would eventually lose faith in science and we would lose an invaluable aid to government decision making.
	Since then I have had the privilege of working with the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, helping the Royal Institution to set up its high-quality science media centre. As has been said, it has continued effectively to equip the public with the tools necessary to comprehend the frameworks which guide scientists in their work and, in doing so, dramatically to improve the understanding of how science interacts with politics.
	The Scientific Alliance is another young organisation that has been doing just this within environmental politics. Working with it has brought two things into focus for me. First, that people should know that science does not purport to be an ineluctable set of truths. They should know this but know how scientists advise politicians and how politicians try to act upon that advice to the wider benefit of society. Secondly, as an entrepreneur, I realise that I have something to say on the risk and risk avoidance that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said was at the heart of today's debate. We should accept that sometimes there is an even greater risk in not taking a risk.
	So as regards "risk", it is the responsibility of politicians, with the advice of scientists, to communicate the level of risk to the public on issues. Scientists are guided by risk assessment in their work and I believe that politicians should apply this notion as well.
	But politicians, faced with emotional arguments from lobby groups and the media, have turned to the precautionary principle too often and too strongly. Sensationalist media suggest that because scientists cannot prove something to be 100 per cent safe one must assume that it is positively dangerous. Consequently, the public start to lose trust in the science itself.
	In defence, scientists desperately try to balance the debate but often they lack the specialist skills and the huge resources available to lobby groups. Scientists are taught to be tentative and most do not talk in "sound-bites", but science is the best mechanism we have to provide us with a balanced version of the risks and opportunities. If we try to apply the precautionary approach to all advances, we shall cease to exist as a modern society.
	I am no scientist—in fact, I was banned for life from the school biology lab for a transgression—but, in my own field of retailing, to create billions of pounds each year of innovative consumer products we must take risks. Fashion is fickle and, in textiles and foods, a new product cannot be tested to death. We have to rely on forward-looking designers for appearance and applied science from experienced technologists for performance. Neither can give a 100 per cent guarantee. You take their best advice and then you make the best decision and take the risk. Making the wrong decision can cause a set-back, but even worse damage can be done by not taking the decision at all or simply going for the safest option. That can bring down the whole company. If we want to make progress, risk cannot be avoided or evaded.
	In medical health—as an example of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chan—I am chairman of a ground-breaking charitable project called DIPEx, which stands for "direct personal experience of illness". We use science to help to talk about risks so that the public can make informed choices. DIPEx allows people who have been diagnosed with a life-threatening condition or illness to see other patients' experiences on video. That helps them to understand the risks when making very hard decisions at critical times and how to live with their conditions. Our site is now accessed by 300,000 people a month. The science and technology involved is highly sophisticated, but the site lets people understand it in their own terms.
	Finally, we have mentioned schools and universities. Our education system also has a role to play in enabling understanding of scientific method. We must shift how we teach our children about science. When we teach English literature or history in schools, we do not expect all pupils to become novelists or historians. Instead, we teach everyone about the methodology underlying literary criticism or historical investigation, so that they can appreciate those paradigms and how they fit with society.
	We need the same approach to science education. New science will prepare all children with the tools to appreciate what methods science uses and what that can do for society. We must also, as the organisation Enquiring Minds suggests, allow students to perform their own experiments outside the laboratory and let them understand that results in science are not always black and white, but sometimes fuzzy.
	In conclusion, within my five minutes, we should take the informed, balanced and expert advice that only science can provide, not ask scientists to decide on policy or blame them when things go wrong. We should help scientists to clarify their message in the public sphere and make clear that scientific interpretations change over time. Finally, as politicians, we should be sufficiently confident in the public to share with them the risks attached to new medicine and technologies and to engage in reasoned debate on the risks that we need to take as a society. Society's future depends on that.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, as a non-scientist, I add my warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, and other speakers, all eminent and many specialists in the field. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, in paying tribute to Dr Ian Gibson, a Member of another place. He is a rare example of someone who successfully combines party politics and science, which is one reason why he is much in demand in the media, like the Minister and others joining in today's debate. It is vital to tackle communication breakdown between academia in general, but science and medicine in particular, and the wider general public, including politicians and policy makers. Otherwise, that can lead to errors that, as we know, sometimes have serious or tragic results.
	For that to happen, trust and transparency are essential. We know that the public do not trust either scientists or politicians after the many recent scares—BSE, MMR, the US Navy ships to be broken up here, and so on. There are many such examples. But the fault is often as much with scientists as with anyone else. They must learn to communicate with politicians: to speak their language when selling new ideas and discoveries to their customers, which is what the politicians are.
	We have not yet really learned the lessons from the misunderstandings of science after such recent scares. One obvious example of what can go wrong is when clinical trials exclude certain sectors of the population—for example, people over 65. Those people may well benefit most from the treatment being tested, but we do not get a chance to know that. By the same token, they can suffer by being treated in the same way as younger people, with harmful results.
	I echo other noble Lords in mentioning the role of the media, which is critical. Evan Davis, the BBC economics editor, spoke recently about trust at the most recent meeting of the All-Party Group on Corporate Social Responsibility, which I am privileged to chair. His point, made about journalists, also applies to politicians. They must trust the information that they are given; they must know that it is accurate and balanced. In other words, they need to know the other side of the story if they are to be able to give an informed view.
	Along with the noble Lord, Lord Stone, I welcome the initiative of the Science Media Centre, involving the Royal Institution, where great efforts are made to raise the level of debate in the media about scientific issues, so that they are not always reported hysterically or in an unbalanced way, as has happened too many times. A good example is the work of Palab Ghosh, the BBC's science correspondent, who makes science come to life and meaningful to a wide audience.
	Related to the issue of trust and balance is the accountability of non-governmental organisations. They have a right to put their case to the media and the wider public, but that must be based on accurate information given to relevant journalists and must acknowledge the other side of the story. I here follow the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. It is difficult for scientists and politicians to know how to handle powerful campaigning and lobby groups that are trusted more than themselves and which, as we know, can hype up a cause with no direct responsibility for the wider impact of their campaign. I speak here as the former head of a campaigning charity and an international NGO.
	As well as the media, NGOs and the public, I agree that it is not just politicians but their civil servants, advisers, researchers and so on who need to understand the basic aims and methods of science and their context. That starts in schools, where many young people still drop science too early, especially between 14 and 16, although that is set to improve greatly, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, so eloquently stated. As Ian Gibson has put it, it is important to recognise the "dual purpose" of science education: obviously, to further specific scientific study; but also to enhance society's wider scientific literacy. That must help to remove the hostility and suspicion of science among the general public.
	There are some interesting lessons to learn from the conclusions of the inquiry on science education of the Science and Technology Select Committee in another place in the previous Session. I hope that we will hear from the Minister how that report has been followed up since its publication.
	Lastly, I mention higher education. Is it too much to suggest that we might again build up the role of the new universities—the old polys—as the primary resource and centre for excellence for applied science and technology for vocational careers, giving the best of them the status of some of the great polytechnics across the Channel?
	This debate is important because science and technology are central to our lives. It could equally have centred on many other areas of life where better understanding and interpretation are needed so that we can restore authority and respect to those who have the power to shape our future—both as scientists and as politicians.

Lord Winston: My Lords, we all owe the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, a debt for introducing this important debate. There is no doubt that something of a crisis is affecting trust in science, the advice given by scientists and, indeed, the recruitment of scientists to university.
	My noble friend Lady Jay mentioned stem cell and embryo research as being two outliers that do not follow the normal pattern in that they have been accepted by the public. I suspect that that is partly because government were largely uninvolved in those debates and partly because the public well understood that that research was potentially of great benefit. That was an example of genuine dialogue—a matter to which I shall return shortly.
	However, as many speakers, especially the noble Lord, Lord May, said, communication is only the tip of the iceberg. As he said, it seems that the more knowledge, the more distrust—something to which he referred in his Royal Society presidential speech last year and again today. We scientists have to learn something that will be difficult and take a considerable time. It was addressed in the Science and Society report so able chaired by my noble colleague—may I call him a friend?—Lord Jenkin.
	First, we scientists will have to show much greater sensitivity to ethics and ethical attitudes—that will be clear. Secondly, we must reinforce public ownership of science, which will be even more difficult. With all due respect to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, it is not right to say that the Government were generous with their science funding. We are extremely grateful to the Minister, but the Government are spending the taxpayers' money, so it is the public who support science. As scientists, we are servants of society, not primarily servants of government. We need to keep a distance from government, which will be a very difficult act. It will be even more difficult for us to demonstrate that sometimes the public will take views that we do not share because they want to have ownership of science. I argue, therefore, that we need to retain independence of government.
	As mentioned, we must recognise that science is not certain. The problem is that the Government and Ministers want black and white, another reason for our being wary of being too much in the government pocket. We must also avoid exaggeration and over-confidence. Ministers want that, and we are too ready to ascribe to it, because funds may chase that exaggeration, but we should be very wary. With all due respect to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in some ways I regret signing the letter about genetically modified foods because, as scientists, we showed a degree of arrogance and a failure to recognise that we need to indulge in much greater dialogue.
	Another reason to be careful of government is that, above all, we must beware of commercial concerns, which increasingly drive science. Not unreasonably, the Government, and future governments, will wish to stimulate commerce, because it is one way of driving universities. But it is a danger for us. One of the clear reasons why GM foods received such a disastrous scientific assessment by the public was that they saw no value to them but saw the risk of commerciality.
	As my friend Professor Kathy Sykes of Bristol University has said, it is important to engage in dialogue. Recently, in her inaugural lecture, she said that we should not underestimate the public—my goodness, that is right. It would be good to see more universities such as Bristol University indulge actively in that activity, helping to identify concerns and issues and trying to get proper representation of the public, not merely pressure groups.
	There are certain things that we should be doing. First, we should advance ethical debate. We need to establish informal links between scientists and Members of Parliaments, as the Royal Society has already started to, which might be done in many ways. We must train scientists, who are not ready to express themselves and do not readily listen to the public. We need more university investment in engagement. Perhaps we should revisit the research assessment exercise, which inhibits many who might engage with the public from doing so. As has been said, we as scientists must understand the nature of science. So often we do not understand it; we present it as black and white.
	Finally, we must listen; we must recognise that other members of the public may not share our view and that we may have to abandon some advances, even though we think that they are right to pursue. Above all, we must allow time. That is not an easy exercise and it will take considerable time to get the public to see that we have good faith in what we are doing. One thing that we are doing badly is failing to recognise where scientific problems and issues may lie in the future and getting ahead of the game.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, forgive me for focusing my remarks on medical science in my noble friend's important and timely debate. There is good and bad science. Just because a result is statistically significant does not mean that it is biologically important. Scientific evidence is different from legally admissible evidence; it is a pity that the same word is used to describe very different concepts. Good science may defend policy or explain policy change.
	The peer review system for looking at results is not perfect, but it is the best that we have. Many medical journals, such as the Lancet, have fast-track quality control for important results. During the SARS outbreak, that system was evident.
	How can scientists and politicians communicate in a common language? The strength of research evidence can be graded, from level I—the randomised controlled trial at best—to level IV, at weakest. Some therapies have a powerful placebo effect, which is probably mediated by the dopaminergic reward mechanisms in the human brain, and relate to the expectation of clinical benefit, explaining why people feel better when taking something although the purported effect is absent. Level II evidence is often the only practical way in which to collect data. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments, such as the introduction of penicillin treatment in the 1940s, could be regarded as that type of evidence; it should not be discounted. Politicians often receive expert opinion, or level III evidence. Level IV evidence, the anecdote, may mislead.
	Guidance can be graded from A—strong supporting evidence—to C, when the jury is out. Grades D and E highlight fair to good evidence to support rejecting something.
	As well as interpreting and weighting evidence, the major challenge is how to communicate risk to politicians and thence to the public, a topic highlighted by several noble Lords. Palab Ghosh recommended the establishment of a dedicated hotline for journalists to speak directly to a scientific adviser when there was a threat to the nation's health. A fast-moving, breaking story has far more media impact than scientific papers. Websites are inadequate in a crisis because they get jammed. People trust anecdotes from friends and family and, to an extent, they trust their doctors and the media, but they mistrust messages from politicians. The trusted unscientific anecdote from family and friends may be due to chance but it forms a powerful message.
	Several noble Lords have highlighted that risk information must be presented in an understandable format. A community risk scale may help to link to the power of the anecdote. In the scale, the risk magnitudes are anchored via a community cluster classification. The verbal risk scale—"one per street", "one per town", "one per country"—has its numeric equivalent based on the underlying probabilities. The Richter scale for earthquakes is logarithmic, so the concept of gradient is broadly understood, as it is the only scale in common use—even though the logarithmic basis is not understood by many people.
	The numeric scale can be translated into a community concept as follows: one in 10 is one person in a family affected; one in 100 is one person in a street; one in 1,000 is one person in a village; one in 100,000 is one person in a large town; one in 3 million is about one person in Wales; and one in 50 million is about one person in England.
	The community risk scale shows, for example, that in any year in Britain you can expect that around one person in your street will die; one person in your nearest large town will be murdered; and one person in a whole region, or five in England—one in 10 million—will be killed by lightning. Claims of a doubling of risk are beloved of reporters, headline writers and sometimes fundraisers but they help no one, as they do not contextualise the risk. Reports of cures can be singularly irresponsible; sometimes they are simply a chance variation in a spectrum, yet they are hailed as a miracle. A unified format of risk scale such as the community scale may help to convey complex messages.
	Sir Kenneth Calman described working with the media to convey information as having three phases. The first is the anticipatory phase, in which it is not clear whether there is a problem. The next is looking at whether evidence about a problem has built up. Lastly, the audit phase—the one often forgotten—means looking back to ask whether the process could have been handled better. Good communication is a two-way process: it entails the giving of information, the understanding of that information and then feedback. Perhaps scientists and politicians would do well to try to develop a common language of risk.

Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Greenfield for initiating this debate and for opening it in such a stimulating manner.
	At the very broadest level, science policy-making has two broad strands. The Government have to consult as they see fit and propose policy. Then they have to get people, Parliament and the electorate to accept it. It is at that second stage that a whole swathe of interested parties become publicly involved—NGOs, experts of differing degrees of expertise, industrial or other lobbying groups, and, of course, radio and television. Unfortunately, what sells newspapers and draws audiences is confrontation, and the temptation to stir up a controversy, even if one does not really exist, can be irresistible.
	At least in part, the ill-informed level of public debate that we sometimes experience today is the consequence of unrealistic expectations of science. Those disappointed expectations arise less from an ignorance of science than from a misunderstanding of what science can provide.
	Science and mathematics are increasingly lonely in the school curriculum as subjects in which answers may be right or wrong. This may make them unattractive to study but, more seriously, it can leave pupils with an impression, which remains with them for life, that, because the tools of science are rigorous, science, if it is done properly, can give clear answers. That thought is commonly implicit in the approach of the popular media to science today. It can lead to the conclusion that, when scientists do not give clear answers, they are either devious or incompetent, which is not always the case.
	Science depends on making careful observations and collating them in a systematic way. They then form a common ground on which conclusions may be based. The conclusions reflect the knowledge and experience of the person deriving them and sometimes there is plenty of room for differences of interpretation. This is the stuff of science and of scientific argument and debate. Debate often leads to consensus or near-consensus. However, such is the passion or sometimes arrogance of some members of the scientific community that, having failed to convince their peers, they appeal to the media. The crusaders appear. The media love it—I am mindful of the debate surrounding MMR and mobile phones—and it becomes a matter of black and white certainties, and adversarial debates with sound bites on the "Today" programme, and an audience that is left more worried than ever about who to believe.
	What should be done? As noble Lords have pointed out, a great deal of the responsibility rests with the scientific community itself, but in the limited time available I shall not address that. There is a plethora of organisations seeking to improve the quality of public debate. I shall mention only two in connection with which I must declare an interest; namely, POST and SETNET. POST, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, is an independent advisory body with a small permanent staff and a transient population of students and post-doctoral workers. It works by producing short briefing notes in non-specialist language on technical matters that may bear on policy. They are available on the web and aim to be clear, authoritative, independent, timely and above all brief.
	In my experience, parliamentarians are invariably short of time and the number of references to POST in Hansard, especially in the other place, attests to its value. POST has built a truly enviable reputation and has served as a model for similar offices in other parliaments.
	At the other end of the spectrum we have to think about science in schools. A reasonable understanding of what science can and cannot do should be part of the education of all. SETNET tries to help with this. It is an organisation supported by government, industry, charities and all the main engineering and scientific institutions. It provides practical support for teachers by making possible a wide range of extra-curricular STEM activities, particularly in collaboration with local industry. In their different ways, both POST and SETNET make their contributions to improving the quality of the STEM debate, a need that is shared by all developed countries. It really amounts to recognising that, as in many walks of life, asking the right questions is more than half way to getting the right answers.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am also most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for raising this important question. I must admit that I am a little sceptical about whether the answer to all our problems lies in better communication between scientists and politicians. One of the major dilemmas facing politicians is that they have to try to sell seemingly unpopular policies and, let us face it, science is not always popular. As politicians always have to have at least one eye on the ballot box, there is a calculation to be made about the impact of their policies on public opinion.
	Unfortunately, there are enough divisive policies around—on the euro, the Iraq war and so forth—for governments to be wary of taking on any more. The GM crop issue may seem relatively small beer in a politician's grand scheme of things. However, at the end of the day, that approach is bad—bad for the public, for science, for UK plc and for government.
	A few weeks ago, an enormous amount of misinformation and nonsense was put out by the anti-GM lobby in the wake of a report on GM crops, which had briefly emerged only to sink below the surface again. In fact, anyone who actually read the report might have come to a quite different conclusion from the view that was publicised so widely. The Government's response has been somewhat muted. However, this is an example of how a vocal, well organised minority pressure group, putting out vast amounts of propaganda, can convince the public that an important scientific advance, with many implications for worldwide nutrition, is dangerous, when all the evidence gathered thus far that can stand up to critical scrutiny points to it being potentially good.
	That example is one of many in which important public policy is being blocked. Nuclear fuel is probably the safest and most eco-friendly source of energy, but "nuclear anything" receives such a poor press that progress on policy in that area is so cautious as to be imperceptible. Now we are faced with anti-science groups focusing on nanotechnology and genetic research. Although there are entirely legitimate and reasoned debates to be had on all these scientific developments—about safety, benefits and utility, they are being hijacked by unreason and opinion rather than by fact and evidence.
	In my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, we must have one of the most effective and knowledgeable science Ministers we have ever had. We do not need better methods of communicating with him: he is in daily contact with scientists and is doing a marvellous job, as we have heard, in getting more money for research. Perhaps we need better ways of communicating with other Ministers, but, much more importantly, scientists need to consider how best to help politicians with their dilemma of selling science policy to a sceptical public.
	Other noble Lords have spoken of trust. Whenever there is a poll of public opinion about who the public trusts, politicians come next to the bottom—just above journalists. A MORI poll showed that only 23 per cent of the public trust politicians to tell the truth, and 15 per cent of the public trust journalists to tell the truth. Scientists do little better; something like 63 per cent trust them to tell the truth. Politicians and scientists need better advocates.
	In medical science, I am always struck by how effective patients and their carers are as advocates for medical research. As scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities, I have attended many meetings at which scientists, politicians and patients have sat together on the platform. No matter how unused to speaking in public the patients are, they are far and away the most convincing promoters of medical research. The message is that, if we want to convince an audience, we should take along a patient. Politicians and scientists in fields other than medicine need better advocates. Perhaps, those supporting GM crops need potential beneficiaries, preferably from the third world.
	Being my usual helpful self to the Minister and given my sense of the interesting question raised by the noble Baroness, I believe that scientists should seek the potential beneficiaries of scientific advances to help politicians and scientists through the dilemmas of selling scientific policy.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, I come to this fascinating debate as neither a scientist nor a politician. I am sure that having a degree in natural sciences from Cambridge does not qualify me as a scientist—it certainly should not. Nor, for that matter, does being a hereditary Peer qualify me for being a politician, and I would not wish it to. On the other hand, I served on several science and technology sub-committees of your Lordships' House in the 1980s, and I am a great enthusiast for science and technology—especially the geographical sciences, social and physical—so I was tempted to speak this afternoon, albeit that I am conscious that I speak in a superior league and that much of what I wanted to say has already been gone over.
	I want to talk about the dialogue between scientists and politicians, specifically about the venues, which are one of the mechanisms to which the Motion refers. I think immediately of the House itself and of the extraordinarily high quality of some of our debates, including perhaps this afternoon's. Going back a little—perhaps too far—I think especially of the memorable sequence of debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 1990. I think of the quality of some of the interventions, notably those of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, who was Archbishop of York and, of course, a professionally distinguished scientist in his own right. It is hard to think of another parliamentary chamber that could have brought such a range of expertise—scientific and ethical—to bear on that sensitive issue.
	There is also the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has produced a wide range of reports in the past 25 years. In the early days, it had important influence, notably in its first report, Science and Government, and it probably still has. I acknowledge the marvellous report produced by the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, Science and Society. I certainly hope that the Select Committee has influence, but I am not sufficiently au fait nowadays to know. I suggest—I address my remarks to my noble friend Lord Oxburgh—that it might be interesting to research the committee's influence and see how it has changed over the years and how it works, to see whether there are any useful lessons to be learnt.
	There is also the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which is an admirable body. My noble friend Lord Oxburgh referred to it. I also draw attention, as others have done, to the invaluable work of the extra-parliamentary bodies, such as the long-established Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, and the Foundation for Science and Technology, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, chairs so admirably. I must also mention the recent innovation of dinner discussion sessions on public policy issues at the Royal Geographical Society.
	All those bodies directly involve scientists and civil servants, as well as parliamentarians from both Houses. They are invaluable and are an important part of the process of dialogue. However, I must raise a question. I have the impression that the rate of attendance and participation by Peers is superior to that of MPs. Having said that, I recognise that there are some notable exceptions. It was nice to see Ian Gibson standing at the Bar at the beginning of the debate. I say it with some trepidation and diffidence, but it is possible that constituency affairs tend to bear down too heavily on MPs. Perhaps, they attract a particular sort of person to becoming an MP. That may be nonsense, but it would be interesting to test the hypothesis. If there is something in it, it would underscore the importance of having a healthy proportion of independents in a reformed House. I shall not pursue that line.
	That observation brings me to my final thought: do we have enough scientists in the House? Are they of the right mix? The answer to the second point is that the scientific discipline of a Member does not matter; what matters is that the scientists who come here should have time to be active in what I call the political process, in its various forms. I would be happy to see a few more scientists and, perhaps, one or two professional geographers. On that note, I had better conclude.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like others far more expert and eloquent than I, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this important debate. My purpose is to give technology, as distinct from science, a bit of a look-in. In that context, it is said that politics is the art of the possible. A cynic might conclude that, in an age of massive technological advance, that could translate into a temptation among policy makers and politicians to see how much they can, as it were, get away with, before public consciousness catches up with what is being done in the public's name.
	By their very nature, science and technology are catalysts of change. They tend to challenge society's ethical and moral boundaries. Yet, there is an identifiable sense in which public opinion about and understanding of a particular technological development or scientific discovery lags behind the establishment of the policy for it. Increasingly, a subjective approach is adopted by policy makers and politicians: that is to say that a policy objective is formulated which, in turn, drives the technological development, instead of policy being derived seamlessly and coherently from the innovation. It is almost as if research and its results—I include the process of consultation—are geared towards proving the pre-ordained policy aim, rather than informing the development of policy from its infancy and any ensuing debate about the nature of its formulation. Perhaps, that "unrealistic expectation"—to borrow the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh—can be deemed a mute witness to the autocratic approach that, many would suggest, is in tune with the age in which we live.
	Importantly and inevitably, such an approach runs the risk of alienating the general public and provoking distrust and scepticism about the wider benefits that technological innovation can provide. It may even go some way towards explaining what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, referred to as the hostility in the relationship between scientists and politicians. It may explain why the independence of scientists and technologists from government, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred, is so important.
	By way of example, that proposition can be applied to the information and communications technology sector. No one would disagree that ICT has the potential to deliver huge benefits to society, not least in terms of law enforcement, delivery of services and so forth. Indeed, much of government policy is predicated on that basis. At the same time, a great deal of public policy is geared towards the benefit of IT to the state alone, rather than its citizenry as a whole. Perhaps the best way to express that is to say that what could be called "the ethical baseline" of IT has not been established in public policy terms.
	In so far as it is simply a medium of communication—a natural progression from letter writing and the telephone and, as such, to be perceived in much the same way as those media—the right of the general public to "ownership" of it has yet to be properly quantified. Accordingly, in that semi-vacuum, the state is afforded—in many respects, has grasped—the opportunity to suborn ICT to its own ends; that is, to treat it as its plaything. The problem here is that that can, and does, have very real and very grave consequences in terms of eroding essential freedoms and civil liberties. Our debates on the RIPA and data retention orders last month exposed that.
	In conclusion, I endorse the premise of the noble Baroness's Motion, and the more so if it is geared towards establishing a meaningful dialogue with the general public. To state the obvious, it is essential that policies emanating from scientific and technological discovery are workable and fit-for-purpose. But—in many respects more importantly—such policies can compromise not only the moral sense of society, but also its liberties and freedoms. That makes it all the more crucial that the policies carry the people with them and not leave them trailing in their wake.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, first, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Greenfield for the opportunity to say a few words about risk. I am on the board of POST; I should like to reinforce the comments made by my noble friend Lord Oxburgh about the excellent work it does in an area of increasing importance. Basic science is not understood by a great number of people. In the debate about antennae, many people did not realise that power decays not lineally with distance from the antenna, but as a square or a cube law. Therefore, it is better to have a great number of low-power antennae than to have one high power antenna. But I shall not go into that.
	I shall concentrate on the perception of risk because it influences our priorities, as well as those of the media, which distorts the message. It can mean that the public ignore a perfectly sensible message because they intuitively know that the message is exaggerated, to which I shall turn later. We are regulating people's lives more; we are removing the discretion for them to make their own decisions. We think that we know better. Many regulations are based on weighing up the balance of probabilities of some harm occurring to people. I am not sure that we always look at all sides of the equation.
	When I take the Tube, I am struck to see escalators boarded up for months on end and to watch poor people stagger down stairs with heavy suitcases. I do not know whether the risk is greater of people dying in a fire because work is being carried out on an escalator during the day or whether more people die through stress and heart attacks because they are struggling up and down stairs when there is no escalator. Someone should do a cost-benefit analysis on that.
	It is the expression of probability that is very interesting. I have noticed three areas in particular. First, there is the expression of probability and how it is expressed; that is, relative risk and percentage terms versus natural frequencies, to which I shall turn in a moment. Secondly, there is the illusion of certainty, which is sometimes expressed. Thirdly, there is emotive language, which can influence matters greatly.
	We are about to spend money on wonderful new ideas. Taking an example which falls within the IT area, we probably are about to pass laws which will allow the Government and the police to keep DNA fingerprints of everyone. First, I turn to the emotive word "fingerprints", which implies certainty. We are used to it; we think it is guaranteed. But what is the certainty of a match? I am told that it is 99.99998 per cent probable, which sounds like an absolute certainty. But that is a means of expressing a one in 6 million chance, which still sounds a certainty. But, for me, a one in 6 million chance means that there are 10 people who have a DNA match with me in the UK; there are 80 people in the European Union. I would be a little worried about whether I am the right person if that is the main evidence to prosecute me, to chase me or whatever.
	Secondly, there is issue of false positives, about which people do not worry. Research was carried out in the O J Simpson trial where some of the laboratories investigated were found to do a one in 200 chance only of producing a false positive. Put like that, any other chances are outweighed altogether. Therefore, certainties must be looked at in a completely different way. Therefore, if certainties are that uncertain, will the risks of uncertainty outweigh the costs that we put into the projects?
	I also want to turn to the competition for money. The poor scientists have to exaggerate in order to obtain funding to pay bills and to keep their families happy because they have to compete for money against medical treatments, research and so forth. It is often said that "such and such kills". I notice that around 650,000 people die in the UK every year. Over the long term, that percentage will stay about the same. Otherwise, the population will live longer and longer; that cannot go on ad infinitum. The number of people who die each year will stay roughly the same.
	What can be tampered with is the age profile and the cause of death. As my noble friend Lady Finlay pointed out, using relative risk to establish a case is dangerous when competing for money. One might say that there is a 25 per cent reduction in deaths from something. But if there are only four deaths in 100,000 people, saving one person or lengthening their life for a short period at a huge cost may not be cost effective. It may be better to apply money elsewhere.
	By nature, I am a risk taker; I have always been like that. Therefore, I prefer to enjoy myself more now and to die younger. That is my personal choice. I eat chocolate; it is full of vitamins and energy. I eat crisps; they keep me awake on long car journeys and I enjoy them as a snack. I am married to a chain smoker who would probably die of stress if she gave up—or kill me in fury or something like that. We ate beef throughout the BSE outbreak because the epidemiology did not suggest that we would die instantly, which has been well proven.
	I could go on to a great number of other matters, but I was cheered up when I looked at the report, Securing Good Health for the Whole Population. In fact, the main reason why I shall not live to the age of 75 is "others", which is 33 per cent of the reason why my life will be shorter. It is not due to CHD or anything else.
	To conclude, a complex network of people who are making individual judgments cannot be controlled by the use of the processes and rules applied to simple systems and we should not expect to predict the outcome. It is important to realise that. We must drop over-regulation, stop exaggerating dangers and allow some creativity to flourish.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I, too, must express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing the debate. The subject is clear; that is, to examine the mechanisms to improve communication between scientists and politicians with a view to a better understanding of scientific policies. We are privileged that in the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, we have our own living mechanism. The noble Baroness, through her books, her television appearances and, most of all, her brilliant work at the Royal Institution, has done much to give the general public a much better understanding of science.
	Since he is in his place, I must also say the same about the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who also captivates the nation with his gripping television programmes. We in this House and the scientific community in general must count ourselves lucky to have such first-class communicators.
	Without being too party political, it is fair to say that this Government are well on track to restoring the country's connection to science. For too many years, governments of both parties have relegated science to the bottom of the pile, with the inevitable results; that is, lack of funding, poor salaries and, in particular, lack of vision. For many years, the result was the infamous brain drain. Scientists left for more sympathetic climes, particularly the United States. It is somewhat reassuring that "brain drain" is an expression that one hears less and less. I am not saying that everything in the garden is rosy, but simply that it is getting better.
	Today, in conjunction with the regional development authorities, funding is going into science-based industries. The RDAs have taken the lead in ensuring that their regions are encouraging state-of-the art development. Again, it is early days, but the pointers are all in the right direction. Companies—particularly small enterprises—are being encouraged to invest in research and development through the availability of attractive tax incentives. Today, our largest companies—I cite pharmaceuticals, chemicals, aerospace and petrochemicals—are up there with the world's best.
	Big science has also been reinvigorated. Once again, our scientists are able to pursue conceptual science at the very frontiers of knowledge. Particle science, astrophysics and investigation into the nature of matter are areas which for many years have been all but denied to us due to the short-sightedness of all governments. We may not be the world-beaters in all spheres, but the UK is certainly back in business. For this, much of the credit must go to my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench who, as others have said, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology, has championed this country's scientific excellence.
	The essence of this debate is about communication between scientists and politicians and there are many ways in which such communication can take place. Other noble Lords have referred to committees and other formal structures. I should like to consider communication more in terms of being an informal and, indeed, a social activity. In the venture capital community, the benefits of the informal gathering are well known. I am associated with an organisation called the Chemistry Club. It is a monthly gathering of venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and high technology businessmen with, sometimes, the odd Secretary of State thrown in. The venue is a first-class restaurant where the wine is good and the food excellent. The "chemistry" describes how people meet people. The list of attendees is circulated prior to the meeting and each person indicates whom he or she wants to meet. As the evening moves on, the staff make sure that everyone is networked. Such is the way of business: meeting, talking and deciding whether there is anything to pursue. It is my guess that many new alliances are formed on such occasions.
	So why not have the same kind of arrangement for scientists to meet politicians and businessmen? Once we get people talking, anything might happen, and certainly such informal meetings allow the juices to flow and ideas to be generated. Most of all, relationships are formed.
	Much has been written about the excellent review published last week by Richard Lambert. In examining the collaborative relationship between universities and business, Mr Lambert and his committee have painted a picture that is in certain parts upbeat, but in others highlights our lack of achievement, in particular in the area of research and development. However, in my opinion, the most telling point he made is that American universities now acknowledge that their reason for engaging in technology transfer is to serve the public good. For me, that puts it all into perspective: universities with their feet on the ground, involved in their communities and with local business. Bringing public good from the ivory tower into the local community strikes me as a noble cause.
	I am currently chairing an investigation on behalf of the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House. We are looking at international treaties which have a high scientific component, concentrating in particular on climate control, biodiversity, whaling, fisheries and the Antarctic and, of course, referring to the treaties and protocols that govern those areas. We are looking at the process of treaties and something that is of specific interest to me: what makes some treaties work and others fail? At this stage we are still making calls for evidence, but we hope to submit our report to your Lordships' House in the early summer. We shall do our best to ensure that our conclusions are clearly communicated to the politicians.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing this extraordinarily interesting debate. I should also declare my interests as a vice-president of the Save British Science society, as a long-term academic in the area of science policy and as a continuing Visiting Fellow of the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex.
	I found the debate very interesting because its focus is, on the one hand, on communication between scientists and politicians, while on the other hand it seeks to address the public understanding not of science itself, but of scientific policies. As a result, I was not quite sure what would be the focus of the debate. In the event, the debate has concentrated on the interaction between scientists and the public while, in a sense, politicians have come out as the piggies in the middle. I agree very much with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord May, that science does not make choices; it merely sets the stage on which Ministers can make those choices.
	Turning to the politicians, Ministers are the people who ultimately have to take decisions and make the choices, and they are advised by a plethora of scientific advisers. They are influenced by pressure groups and the general public. My noble friend Lord Taverne observed that the public are very much influenced by the media, although it is notable that none of the media has been present during this debate.
	The subject of the public understanding of science has come to the fore over the past 10 years or so, in part because—others may hold different views—today science is pushing into the centre many of the issues which, in earlier times, were at the periphery. They were regarded as being ethical issues on which small groups of experts would take a view, but which were not centre stage. Today, however, when we consider issues such as genetic engineering, then we must acknowledge that science turns almost into God; perhaps we shall be able to create people. Therefore scientific issues such as genetic manipulation, in vitro fertilisation and stem cell research have become central questions of scientific policy.
	Here I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who complimented the quality of debate that takes place on such issues in this House. I was not here in the 1980s when the questions surrounding in vitro fertilisation were considered. The guidelines that emerged from those debates, overseen by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, set this country above others in this area. However, I was here for our electric debate on stem cell research. It marked a highlight of my five years in this House.
	I am interested in two different aspects of the question of making scientific policy. First, we must address the question of policy making with regard to scientific issues. Here I refer to policies on foot and mouth disease, BSE, in vitro fertilisation and stem cell research. However, the second aspect is one just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, in his contribution: the Government's policies with regard to the promotion of science; that is, the policies pursued by the Government in order to promote science and technology because of the links between science, technology and innovation and the further link between innovation and competitiveness that was considered in the Lambert report. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, that it is an excellent report, although I was slightly depressed about the degree to which our media have portrayed it as being, once again, a question of scientists having to go out and sell their ideas to entrepreneurs, whereas what Richard Lambert seeks to do in his report is to put his finger on the failure of industrialists to pick up and develop those ideas.
	I would argue, as did the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Waldegrave, that there is no lack of mechanisms for communication between scientists and politicians. As regards scientific policy making, we have a large number of advisory committees of one kind or another—in the main where scientists advise Ministers. Similarly, Parliament is served by parliamentary scientific committees, the Foundation for Science and Technology, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology—POST—the Royal Society and the Royal Institution, among others. A plethora of organisations seeks to influence politics and politicians. However, I would pose the question of whether that dialogue is getting through.
	Let us look at who is in the Chamber today. The noble Lords present comprise largely scientists talking to scientists. One feature that I have noticed in attending the Foundation for Science and Technology, which I much enjoy, or the parliamentary scientific committee, is that there are few politicians there. There are quite a large number of scientific politicians in this House—many of whom are Cross-Benchers and would not say that they were politicians—but relatively few Members of Parliament.
	In science policy, we have developed a term, which is not very attractive but picks up what I was saying about the Lambert report. It is called the "absorptive capacity". One problem that we have with British industry is that, because it does not do R&D, it does not employ scientists and engineers, so there is nobody in-house who can understand what is going on and translate it into useful things to do. The industry has to rely on outside experts, who do not always understand what is going on inside. It is a question whether there are receptors for the information as well as people who create that information. One problem is that we lack, particularly within Parliament, the receptors for that information. There are Select Committees, to whose work I pay great tribute, but does that Select Committee advice get through? Are there enough people within the broad area of government—not only Ministers and parliamentarians, but within the Civil Service?
	An issue that worries me a little is the way in which we have run down the scientific Civil Service. I quote a paragraph from the cross-cutting report that appeared before the CSR last March. The report stated:
	"In order to discharge their function adequately, Chief Scientific Advisers will need appropriate support from scientifically qualified staff. In the period until the 1980s when departments ran their own laboratories, they used those laboratories as a supply of scientific talent to meet their needs for scientific expertise. Most departments no longer run their own dedicated research organisations, and rely on outsiders for this function. Consequently they have lost an important source of supply of experienced scientific talent. And little effort is now made to take a systemic view on the areas of policy that need scientific input, or the critical mass of scientists needed at the science/policy interface".
	That report picked up the criticisms that came through from the Phillips report on BSE and were echoed in his comments on the foot and mouth disease.
	What do we want to do? First, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others did, I suggest that we need to consider science education. Great advances have been made in science for primary schools, but there is still a very real problem about science in secondary schools—with the narrowness of the A-level curriculum and the need to broaden it, moving with Tomlinson to something like the international baccalaureate.
	Secondly, I echo totally the need for open and ready consultation, debate and dialogue with everyone. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave. We need an open and clear trail of how decisions are made. Freedom of information is a very important aspect of getting the debate out into the public and getting the public to understand and participate in it.
	Thirdly, I wonder why we do not want there to be more interchange between civil servants and academia, in particular. I know that we are bringing people in at chief scientific adviser level, but I should like there to be much more interchange at lower levels. Only when someone spends two to three years in a position does he actually influence decisions and understand how the organisation works; that person needs to influence the organisation as well as saying which decisions should be made.
	Lastly, I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and to the Minister for Science, because we have seen great advances in developments and thinking about science, technology and innovation from this Government. However, I am extremely worried at the discontinuity between the thinking taking place about universities between the DfES and the Higher Education Funding Council, with its suggestions of concentration of research. In that case, the bodies did not listen to the scientists at all, whereas, in POST, people have been listening to them. That is extremely dangerous for the Government and I suggest that they look hard at it.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for having initiated this important debate. Certainly, her impressive scientific background qualifies her very well to speak on this subject. That is the first point that I should like to make. In your Lordships' House, on all sides, we have a wealth of scientific expertise, which has been on show today. Indeed, among our Members there is a vast amount of knowledge and experience on every conceivable subject. Many of them have been appointed to this House for life because of the contributions that they have made to the public benefit in their chosen fields. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave said—that there is room still for more scientists.
	I agree with the theme of the debate proposed by the noble Baroness—namely, that communication between politicians and scientists could and should be improved. In both Houses, there is a wide range of scientific interests. According to the most recent edition of Vacher's Parliamentary Companion, there are seven categories of scientific interests among Members and, within those seven categories, there are no fewer than 76 sub-categories. They cover every subject from astronomy to water, including some 42 devoted to medicine alone.
	Personally, I do not believe that the problem lies—or entirely lies—in a lack of communication between scientists and parliamentarians. My postbag contains an endless supply of briefing notes, information sheets, lobbying data and invitations to attend this or that conference or meeting. I am certain that many of your Lordships, especially those with sufficient interest in scientific subjects to take part in today's debate, have the same experience.
	The major problem that the scientific community has in getting a sympathetic hearing lies in ignorance—ignorance among some lay Members of both Houses but, more particularly, ignorance and superstitious prejudice among members of the public. The noble Lord, Lord May, the distinguished President of the Royal Society, writing in an edition of the Parliamentary Monitor, said that science,
	"has escaped from the laboratory into public consciousness".
	The noble Lord, Lord Winston, speaking in the vivisection debate on 17th October referred to scientists',
	"complacent belief that the mere communication of science . . . is adequate to persuade the public of what we are doing".—[Official Report, 17/10/03; col. 1195.]
	To his credit, the noble Lord confessed to his own shortcomings in that respect, although I do not believe that anyone would agree, having seen him on the television. Today he commented on the need for scientists to engage in a dialogue with the public. I believe that most of us would agree with that.
	The noble Lord, Lord May, also said in his article that,
	"scientific issues are increasingly impinging on public debate".
	That is perfectly true, but that public debate often generates more heat than light, to use a well worn cliche. That cannot be entirely blamed on the failure of scientists to communicate with the public adequately—one of the problems highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It also cannot entirely be blamed on plain ignorance by non-scientific members of the public.
	There are a number of sources of positive misinformation or prejudiced propagandising by those with particular axes to grind. For example—without my expressing a personal view on the subject—the public's antipathy to GM foods can clearly be attributed, to a major extent, to a vociferous campaign in parts of the media, which emotively calls them "Frankenstein foods". I note with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said on that point.
	In the debate on vivisection, reference was made to the terroristic threats against Huntingdon Life Sciences and those who provide them with goods and services, including banking. As the noble Lady, Baroness Warnock, pointed out:
	"It might come as a surprise to some of the public if they could be made to understand that many of the animals used suffer nothing".—[Official Report, 17/10/03; Col 1201.]
	The fact is that none of those who are vigorously opposed to necessary experiments on animals, and even those who have some vague doubts about them, possibly due to a lot of the black propaganda, ever seem to hesitate to accept the medication and surgical procedures that result from them.
	That debate, although on a different topic to the present one, highlighted the same problem that we are discussing today. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts reminded the House, your Lordships' report on science and technology in 2002 complained that, "there is a crisis of trust". The noble Lord, Lord May, repeated that today, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
	The reason for that can partially be found in, for example, the way in which the government of the day tried to sweep the BSE crisis under the carpet, probably at the behest of the penny-pinchers at the Treasury, until they were forced to come clean. The same applied to the present Government when they tried to conceal the extent of the foot and mouth crisis, no doubt with the same puppeteers pulling the purse strings. I mention at this point the reference made by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave to the excellent work of the Science Museum and its influence, which might be the reason for its problems.
	To quote again my noble friend Lord Hodgson, these days,
	"people are generally more questioning of authority; some Government departments and institutions still operate too much under a culture of secrecy . . . That all contributes to creating a public suspicion of science and scientists".
	Another strong example of that is the controversy surrounding the MMR inoculations. Even the fact that Dr Murch, whose premature report on the vaccines caused that controversy, has now recanted has not allayed public concern. Seemingly, nothing that government scientists say now can overcome the objection of some parents.
	On scientific matters, the Government must unequivocally and truthfully clarify the scientific evidence and separate that from the political issues on which they are entitled by their mandate to make a policy decision. The question of the relationship between scientists and politicians is not merely one of each understanding the other and getting the public to understand the issues as well. It is also a matter of the Government understanding their obligation to ensure that British scientific endeavours are fully and effectively exploited for the benefit of British industry and the British economy.
	In 1963, Harold Wilson spoke to the Labour Party conference about restating socialism in the white heat of technological revolution. However, when he came to power the following year, matters remained much as they had been before and they have continued in the same way under successive governments of every hue. British scientific and technological discoveries are exported abroad for exploitation because of lack of government support here. We can all recall what happened to the hovercraft, for example.
	While the DTI, the department that I shadow in this House, supports the Engineering and Technology Board, my honourable friend the Member for Lichfield pointed out in the same interesting issue of the Parliamentary Monitor that Britain has been left to follow the lead of the USA and Japan in investment and exploitation of new products. The Government's tax credits for small and medium-sized companies involved in research and development have had a disappointing take-up rate because, as Ernst & Young suggests, application for the allowances is such a complicated process.
	My honourable friend's article is a powerful argument in support of nanotechnology, a subject of which many parliamentarians may have been blissfully unaware, despite our excellent debate on the subject, instigated by my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton on 14th March, when he asked this House to take note of the Science and Technology Select Committee's report, Chips With Everything.
	As all your Lordships taking part in this debate know, nanotechnology is the manufacture of materials from minute components. As my honourable friend wrote in his article, it has,
	"huge consequences for the environment, medicine, warfare, industry and society . . . and offers a potentially cleaner environment, cleaner products and cleaner processes".
	Despite an investment of £28 million at Imperial College over six years, and the announcement of some further £90 million over six years announced by the Government in July, Mark Welland, Professor of Nanotechnology at Cambridge warns that the United Kingdom risks falling behind if it does not, with government and industrial assistance, adopt the right strategy. What is at stake is a global market of some £148 billion by 2010. That is just seven years away. The Labour chairman of the Science and Technology Committee in the other place complained that the Government's support is "minuscule".
	The article by the noble Lord, Lord May, pointed out that scientific advancement is impeded also by the dead hand of Brussels bureaucracy, and it warned that the EU directive on good clinical practice could have serious implications for cancer patients and research in the United Kingdom as it effectively stops publicly funded trials
	Similarly, although the United Kingdom Parliament has voted, after extensive public debate, to allow research on human embryonic stem cells and therapeutic cloning, a shabby procedural manoeuvre in the European Parliament puts that at risk. It seems that our scientists will have to improve their PR with the European Parliament and the Commission, as well as with the United Kingdom Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and many elements of the media.
	Better communication between politicians and scientists must have the effect, first, of ensuring that politicians are better informed about issues and developments in the world of science, uninfluenced by ill informed and sometimes Luddite media campaigns.
	Secondly, we must ensure that, since our industrial base is fast disappearing overseas, the Government, who are the only true source of the vast funds needed, give the necessary support to our wide pool of scientific talent to enable them to produce the new technologies and the discoveries that will be the basis of this country's economy in the future.
	All noble Lords here today agree that we could not have a better advocate for that than our Science Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. Perhaps it is the time for Harold Wilson's white heat of technological revolution to arrive at long last—just 40 years after he invented the phrase.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for raising this important subject, which is an issue of major concern to the Government. I am also pleased to see that so many noble Lords have participated in the debate, which does illustrate the interest in science and technology in this House.
	Since taking office in 1997, the Government have placed research and innovation at the heart of their policies for securing our nation's future. We have put substantial extra funds into the science and engineering base, so that the science budget, which was £1.3 billion when we entered office, will be £3 billion by 2005–06. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that that is not our money, but that of the taxpayer. However, where politicians put their money illustrates the values that they hold and the importance that they attach to subjects. We can therefore claim that we have demonstrated how seriously we take science and technology in our society.
	However, there is no doubt that if we are to reap the benefits of this extra investment, the public's positive engagement and continuing support are vital. The Prime Minister said in his unprecedented address at the Royal Society last year:
	"Science is posing hard questions of moral judgement and of practical concern, which if addressed in the wrong way, can lead to prejudice against science which I believe would be hugely damaging. As a result, the benefits of science will only be exploited through a renewed compact between science and society, based on a proper understanding of what science is trying to achieve".
	In responding to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, I shall make three initial points. First, if we are to improve the dialogue between scientists and politicians, it is essential that each side understands the other better. I agree strongly with my noble friend Lady Jay on that. It is important that politicians understand the basis of scientific method and that scientists have often to work with a great deal of uncertainty and cannot give instant answers. It is equally important that scientists understand that politicians have to make decisions in response to current and urgent problems and cannot always wait for a 10-year study and that it is not always easy to give lengthy and technical explanations on the "Today" programme, assuming that one is allowed to give any explanation at all. Neither side has a monopoly of wisdom, objectivity or foresight.
	Secondly, in this area as in many others, I doubt that most people want to become engaged in lengthy debates with experts. Rather what the public wants, I think, is to know that issues such as the ethical, health and environmental impacts of new technologies are properly considered by scientists, regulatory and ethical experts and by representatives of the public. They want such debates to take place in a transparent way, and to be able to take part in them if they so desire. I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord May, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that transparency and dialogue are absolutely critical. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that ethical debate is a key part of these issues.
	Thirdly—again, in this area as in many others—I think the need is not for more initiatives but rather to make our current channels of communication and forums for debate work better. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, that we do not want to have new initiatives. If we want to do anything, we want to put better tyres on the wheels, and certainly not to have more institutions. I agree with him also that the Science Museum is a wonderful institution. I am sure that, in the spending review 2004, the Treasury will listen to his words on funding.
	Finally on these matters, I should like to say a few words about the state of British science and public opinion. It is simply not true that there is no communication between scientists, engineers and the Government. We have the Council for Science and Technology which, if it wants, has direct access to the Prime Minister. We also have the Chief Scientific Adviser, who still reports directly to the Prime Minister and frequently sees him. We are making certain that each department has a chief scientific adviser who is involved in top policy decision-making. Now, the Chief Scientific Adviser is involved in the appointment of the chief scientific advisers of departments, to ensure that we have high-level people in those positions.
	It is not necessarily true that we have no scientists in Parliament; in fact, 64 MPs have a first degree in science. The percentage of MPs with a first degree in science and technology is therefore probably slightly higher than that for the general population. I also do not think that it is true that there is a crisis in British science or in the British public's view of science. All the surveys show that although the British public remain on the whole very supportive and enthusiastic about science, they have concerns about particular technologies and particular areas. To characterise that as the British public's concern about science is to ignore their real attitude, which is to be generally positive about science while having concerns about particular areas. We need to address those areas.
	I also do not accept that morale among British scientists is very low. There is clearly a problem in the field of plant science. However, I visit many research establishments and, on the whole, I think that scientists' morale is currently fairly high. The B-plus or A-minus which the noble Lord, Lord May, gave the Government's science policy was extraordinarily encouraging. I have never heard him give anyone more than that, but I have heard him give many people a much lower grade. I therefore take it as a sign of encouragement.
	We used to deal with these considerations under the policy heading of "the public understanding of science". However, since the groundbreaking report published in February 2000 by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, our thinking and approach have shifted from that deficit model to one of positive engagement. I think that scientists need to be engaged in three equally important areas: with government, with politicians and with the general public. I shall deal first with the Government.
	We are committed to the principle that policies should, wherever practical, be evidence-based. We want, therefore, to have access to the relevant scientific advice and how to use that advice effectively in arriving at policy decisions. That is particularly important where there is significant scientific uncertainty, where there is a range of scientific opinion and where there are potentially significant implications for sensitive areas of public policy. In recent years we have acted systematically to put that principle into action. Nevertheless, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, that a great deal has happened in this area since the BSE problem.
	Three key documents—the cross-cutting review of science and technology, the Guidelines 2000: Scientific advice and policy making and the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees—set out a number of recommendations which departments are expected to follow in managing their research to underpin policy making, as well as the rules which should apply to committees that advise government on science issues. I think that we have made good progress in implementing those recommendations. We have also set up the OST science review, a rolling programme of external scrutiny and benchmarking of the ways in which government departments use science and manage research. So, in a sense, we will be peer reviewing the quality of scientific advice given to departments and how they make use of that advice.
	Those are not short-term initiatives; they will have a significant impact on the quality of policy making and decision making in both the long and short term. In addition, there is significant "horizon scanning" within government departments, especially the OST's Foresight programme which actively engages with scientists and other stakeholders to identify areas of cutting-edge science that will impact on society and on social problems where science can make a major contribution to solving them.
	Parliament has also long recognised the need to engage with science and scientists and has actively sought ways to enable that to happen. The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee was established back in 1939. More recently, in 2001, Parliament awarded permanent funding to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. POST is an outstanding organisation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, that it does an excellent job. I would encourage all parliamentarians to make good use of POST and to work with it in considering how to strengthen the communication between scientists and politicians.
	Of course, parliamentarians also have opportunities to engage with scientists through their everyday work. The Science and Technology Committees in both Houses are very active, and most other committees occasionally explore issues related to science. Similarly, many all-party groups are interested in science-based issues.
	It is also important that scientists engage with the public. We know that most people get most of their information about science and technology through the media. The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, is to be congratulated on setting up the Science Media Centre, which has been extremely successful in giving the media fast and easy access to the best information when science hits the headlines.
	It is absolutely key to the public debate that there are forums for debate outside Parliament which can engage the public and advise the Government. That is why we set up the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which are doing extremely useful work in controversial areas. It is not simply a case of scientists being prepared to engage in debate. Scientists must recognise that people have valid ethical, health and environmental issues with emerging technologies and should be prepared constructively to engage with the public on those issues.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. This is not simply a question of communication; there are real issues here. However, when it comes to the issue of nuclear energy, it is simply not credible to say that the technology has no environmental impact. Clearly it does. Clearly, that has to be an area of concern. We need to come to grips with the whole issue of nuclear waste and how it is treated before we can say to the public, "This technology is entirely beneficial".
	If there is one thing we have learnt in recent years, it is that we should not wait for concerns to become deeply rooted, leading to polarised and potentially destructive encounters between science and society. We need to think about these ethical, health and environmental issues upstream and to move proactively to involve the public in dialogue, to discuss the risks and benefits and respond to concerns.
	The groundbreaking work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in the early days of the science and technology of human fertilisation and embryology provides us with a useful precedent. UK law on embryo research has evolved over 20 years of public and parliamentary debate, beginning with the committee of inquiry that she chaired in 1982.
	The UK now has one of the most comprehensive schemes of regulation in the world—I think that it is one of the best—and the careful and thoughtful approach taken over this lengthy period has enabled us to introduce the necessary regulatory change to enable stem cell research to go ahead. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that that was one of the cases where we got it right. I also agree with her that the debates we had in this House were among the finest that I have heard here.
	It was with these lessons in mind that I recently commissioned the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to look at whether nanotechnology raised any ethical, health or environmental issues which are not covered by current regulations, and whether, therefore, we need to introduce new regulations. I say in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that in this case we are seeking to get ahead of the public debate, to look ahead and to discuss these issues before they become ones which really affect public opinion.
	We are doing exactly the same thing in other areas of the Foresight Programme. We have recently had a Foresight Programme on cognitive systems which was highly successful. Out of that has come a very clear perception that over the next 10 to 20 years basic brain research will not only be an enormously exciting area of research but will also raise many considerations which, if not handled properly, could lead to a reaction on the part of the public.
	As regards the research that is being carried out by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, a number of aspects have been built into the study in order to engage the general public, and the working group will include those with an understanding of ethical, social, consumer and regulatory issues, as well as scientists and engineers.
	I turn to some of the issues that have been raised during the debate and which it is extremely important to consider. The question of risk was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Stone, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. In contradiction to what many people believe, I do not believe that the public do not understand probabilities of risk. My experience is that the public understand that very well. They have many dealings with risk during their lives. They can judge risks very well. However, their approach to risk is strongly influenced by a number of values and beliefs. The first is whether or not they can choose to accept the risk—a point made strongly by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. People may climb mountains. They know that that is very risky but it is their choice as opposed to being forced to accept something without having any say in the matter. Secondly, they always consider very carefully the benefits and risks of technological developments. Problems arise when the public do not consider that the benefits outweigh the risks involved. There is no problem with medical biotechnology because people see substantial benefits arising from it. The same is true of mobile telephones, even though some people rightly think that you cannot rule out risk totally in that regard. However, people have choice in the matter and regard mobile telephones as conferring major benefits. A third consideration is always whether government can do anything about a matter. If people consider that government can reduce the risk and are not doing so, not unnaturally they consider that action should be taken. We need always to put risk in that context.
	The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, asked about the Government's position on science. As I say, I think that the Government have made very clear their position on science. Professor David King wrote in an article in the Guardian that it has always been made clear that the Government are neither pro nor anti-GM crops. He referred not to plant science but to GM crops, which is an application of science. He went on to say that decisions would be made on a sound scientific basis. That is the most important issue in the article.
	I agree, however, with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that we must resist the idea that science can be treated simply on a democratic basis. I think that it is wrong to start trying to make decisions about whether a technology is good or bad. What government can rightly do is ask whether there are ethical, health, safety or environmental considerations regarding new technology. However, it should be left to individuals to make up their minds whether they want to accept a particular technology once those regulatory considerations have been taken into account. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that for government to try to take decisions about whether a technology is good or bad—where there are no ethical, health or environmental considerations—is, indeed, an infringement of the liberty of both the person discovering it and the person who makes use of it.
	I was asked where the department of science and technology should be located in government. Governments across the world consider that issue continuously. We in this country have tried linking that department to education, which is one solution. We have had it in the Cabinet Office, which is another solution. It is now linked to the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not consider that that is overwhelmingly the best place in which to locate it, but it is not at all clear that any of the others are better. Perhaps in the UK's situation, where we have an outstanding science base—therefore, it is not necessary to link it so strongly with the Department for Education—but where we have a major problem of technology transfer, it makes sense to locate it alongside the Department of Trade and Industry. However, as I say, governments around the world change their mind on the matter. Probably the thing to do is not to keep changing one's mind but to keep the department where it is.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that the Chief Scientific Adviser still reports to the Prime Minister and played a major role in dealing with the foot and mouth disease crisis. I do not think that it would have made any difference to the speed with which he was brought in to deal with that whether he was located in the Cabinet Office or in the Department of Trade and Industry.
	I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that I agree very strongly with him that we should celebrate science. We should celebrate the excitement and the wonder of science as well as the benefits that it can bring to our society. The more one learns about science, the more one wonders at the extraordinary way in which our world was created rather than the opposite.
	I always have a problem with alternative medicines. People want alternative medicines that are deemed to have scientific validity. However, if they have scientific validity, they are no longer alternative medicines; they are just plain medicines. We can, of course, do much to improve the efficacy of drugs, which is one of the issues that will emerge from the human genome project as we begin to understand more about that.
	I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that we need to give our less research-intensive universities a clear mission with applied research as the fundamental part of that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, that knowledge transfer is not about the funding of universities; it is simply now one of the major tasks of universities in a knowledge-driven economy and society. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the need to raise the level of scientific talent in departments. The cross-cutting review's comments on that were extremely good—I say that partly because I wrote them. It is now firmly part of the responsibilities of the Chief Scientific Adviser that he raises the level of scientific talent in the Civil Service.
	I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that it is important to get a better link between the Office of Science and Technology and DfES regarding the funding of universities. The Office of Science and Technology, through the research councils, has a major stake in that. I chair a Joint Committee which is considering how we respond to our consultations on the RAE, sustainability research and, indeed, knowledge transfer. Clearly, what the two departments do interacts very strongly in those areas.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that we are now beginning to make progress on getting knowledge transfer right. We are now beginning to see a cultural change in the universities, as can be seen from the number of spin-offs, licences and patents. If we look back at the Harold Wilson speech on the white heat of technology, it is remarkable that that speech contained nothing about market needs, consumers or any other aspect of connecting science with the market, which is, of course, what innovation is about. We shall shortly produce an innovation report—indeed, this month. That will go into the question of how we raise our level of innovation, which is of course of critical importance in the new global economy, in which we have to compete with the emerging economies with their lower wages.
	I hope that we are also getting our policy on nanotechnology right. It is a typical British story. We were among the first in the field, and indeed had a DTI programme with the National Physical Laboratory, which I think ran from 1986 to 1996. At that point—exactly the point at which every other country woke up to the importance of the subject—we said, "We've done nanotechnology", and stopped the programme. We have had a report recently that I asked for from the director-general of the research council about what our strategy should be, and we are now implementing it.
	All of us—politicians, scientists, the public—have a role to play if we are to create that "renewed compact" to which the Prime Minister referred. It is clear from the debate that scientists now have great enthusiasm to engage with the public, and we are working very hard to ensure that the channels exist for them to do so effectively and in ways that will raise people's confidence that the important advances taking place in science and technology will deliver major benefits to them.

Baroness Greenfield: My Lords, I would not presume to add anything further to the diverse insights and ideas that we have heard from so many noble Lords, representing as they do such a diverse range of expertise. Nor could I attempt to add anything substantive to the excellent winding-up speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. Indeed, I add my voice to those of many noble Lords this evening in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for all that he is doing as Science Minister for British science and British scientists.
	Someone once said that for every complex problem there is always a simple answer, and that it is always wrong. Tonight, we have seen just how complex, diverse and, above all, important the issues that we have debated are. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (Amendment of section 46(1) and paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 8) Order 2003

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that, following debate during the passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and the consultation process with a range of organisations in Northern Ireland about their inclusion within the remit of the criminal justice inspectorate, an additional eight organisations were included within the remit of the chief inspector of criminal justice by order last December. Today, we consider a further three additions to the list of organisations in the Act which are subject to inspection by the criminal justice inspectorate before it becomes operational next autumn.
	The additional organisations listed in the order have all been considered appropriate for inclusion based on information provided by them and their representatives during the consultation process. They all consented to their inclusion. The basis of the decision for their inclusion is that each of the bodies has an investigatory and prosecutorial role, all operate their own police services, and the extent of their policing powers are comparable with other bodies listed, such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
	The order also includes an addition to the list of organisations named in the Act to which the chief inspector may wish to delegate his functions in delivering his work programme. For those organisations currently listed in the Act, it is expected that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation will be able to provide extensive knowledge and expertise in specific areas, which will be of benefit to the chief inspector.
	When considering both those issues, noble Lords may wish to note that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the order earlier today and has confirmed that it is content.
	The order finalises the round of consultations resulting from previous debates, but does not necessarily finalise the lists of organisations which should come within the chief inspector's remit or to which the chief inspector may delegate functions. Both lists will be kept under review. I am willing to hear further representations from all sides. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving this small order so succinctly. I welcome it from these Benches, in particular as I pressed the Government to keep open the list of organisations that could come within the remit. I am delighted that 11, if my arithmetic is correct, have been accepted so far. I was also delighted to hear the noble Baroness say that the list was not closed—that it is still open to further opportunities, if it seems right for other organisations as they appear, to join the list.
	That is particularly important in some ways. I have been approached about the fact that there are some difficulties between the management of Belfast International Airport Ltd and the security police. A friend of mine in the other place is also looking into the matter. It may be worth taking a little comfort from the fact that, if there is a problem, there is an inspector to oversee it. The order makes what I hope is a very small point, and I welcome it.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. We on these Benches support it.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I very much welcome the order. My only regret is that the legislation must be considered here, in Parliament, as an Order in Council. While we are getting quite used to debating such matters here once again, and I sincerely respect the ability of Members of this House and another place to do so, I trust that we will not be doing so for much longer. The recent elections, however, have not brought us any further to the restoration of the Assembly; the situation remains unchanged and I urge the Government not to take their eye off the main issue—the failure of republicans to deliver peace and the winding-up of all paramilitary organisations.
	I am very pleased to see Belfast International Airport Ltd, Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Larne Harbour Ltd on the list of organisations subject to inspection by the chief inspector of criminal justice. When a similar order was considered a year ago in another place, my colleague, Lady Hermon, expressed concern at their omission. As the whole purpose of the chief inspector of criminal justice is to ensure effectiveness and efficiency in the criminal justice system, it appears to be logical and common sense that the organisations should be included within the remit of the inspectorate. I therefore welcome the order wholeheartedly.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for welcoming the order. I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on Belfast City Airport. It has not been included in the list as it does not yet operate its own police service. However, its inclusion in its own right will be kept under review.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, is aware that we are working very hard to restore effective devolved government as soon as possible for Northern Ireland. Our discussions to help to progress that will continue.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Modification) Order 2003

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like to explain the background to the order. It was clear to the Government following the recent elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly that, in the short term at least, restoration of the devolved institutions would not lead to stable and inclusive devolved government. The Government believe that it would be wrong to restore before there is a real prospect of such an administration being formed. It remains our firm wish, however, that restoration should take place as soon as possible, and to that end we will be talking to all the parties in the days and weeks ahead to explore how it can be achieved.
	The order was originally laid before the House on 27th November and has the effect of amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 47(9)(a) of that Act provides that a person's membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly begins, for the purposes of remuneration and pension, on the day when he takes his seat in accordance with the Assembly's Standing Orders. Standing Order 3(3) in turn provides that Members shall take their seats by signing the Roll of Membership at the Assembly's first meeting. Therefore, unless corrective measures had been taken, the new Members of the Assembly would not have been eligible to receive pay or allowances.
	This order therefore provides that, for pay and allowances purposes, membership of the Assembly began on 5th December 2003. That date was chosen as it was the latest date on which the first meeting of the Assembly could have taken place had restoration been possible on election day.
	Newly elected MLAs needed to know, as soon as possible after the election, whether or not they were to be paid and, if they were, at what rate. It is not unreasonable for them to ask for some degree of financial certainty for the purposes of running constituency offices and carrying out their duties. That is why it was necessary to make this order under the urgency procedure. A draft of the order was considered earlier today by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and it confirmed that it is content.
	I recognise that any decision to pay salary and allowances to Members of an Assembly which cannot presently meet may attract a degree of scepticism. It is clearly not right that Members should receive full salary in these unusual circumstances. However, the new MLAs have a fresh mandate and significant constituency responsibilities. Moreover, many of them will be contributing to the review of the Good Friday agreement which will begin soon. It is right that they should be paid for those activities.
	We have therefore announced our intention to pay salaries at the rate of £31,817 per annum for the time being. That is what was paid following the suspension of the previous Assembly in October 2002 until its dissolution in April this year. We believe that this level of salary is appropriate, given the reduced level of the MLAs' responsibilities.
	We have arranged for newly elected MLAs to receive a package of allowances to facilitate their work. We shall also expect this package of salary and allowances to cover the costs of the parties' participation in the forthcoming review. I must stress that these salary and allowance arrangements will remain under close review in the light of political developments.
	I am sure that all noble Lords share the Government's hope that we shall be able to restore effective devolved government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this order is a necessary response to this unusual situation. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the order laid before the House on 27th November be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, once again, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for presenting the order to us. She has made clear that its purpose is to enable Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, elected on 26th November, to be paid for the time being at 70 per cent of the full MLA salary. We shall not oppose the order, although we feel that this situation cannot go on indefinitely.
	We have this situation because, despite the elections taking place, the Assembly remains suspended—it has been since October 2002—and Members are unable to take their seats. We hope that this state of affairs will soon end. We would like to see the Assembly sit and we would like to see devolution and the Executive restored at the earliest opportunity.
	Regrettably, after the elections—as before—there is still not the necessary trust and confidence between the parties for that to happen. As the Government recently pointed out, the situation now is, if anything, more difficult with the DUP and Sinn Fein the largest parties within their respective communities. The prospect of an immediate end to direct rule seems remote.
	What is required now is to build that elusive trust and confidence between the parties, something which the Government have notably failed to achieve to date. Naturally, we wish the Government well in the talks that will be held with the parties next week. We believe that the review, provided for in the agreement, should proceed as the Government have indicated that it will, and we sincerely hope that all parties will participate.
	Yet, despite the elections having been held, the central issue still remains the same as it was before they were called—the continued existence of armed and active paramilitary organisations, republican and loyalist. There must be an end to all forms of paramilitary activity, as set out in paragraph 13 of the British and Irish Governments' Joint Declaration. And we need to be confident that the IRA's so-called war is over. We must see an end to both the IRA and the so-called loyalists as effective paramilitary organisations.
	The Government, too, need to learn lessons. They have to ask themselves how a pro-agreement unionist majority has in five and a half years been turned into a clear anti-agreement unionist majority. They have to ask whether this is a consequence of too many side deals and one-sided concessions to republicans and, I regret to say, broken pledges by the Prime Minister on both weapons and prisoners.
	I urge the Government to think seriously about how they are going to restore balance and fairness to this process. I urge them to consider how they are going to tackle the crisis of confidence in the political process among moderate unionists. And I urge them, along with the Irish Government, now to place all possible pressure on the republican movement to do what should have been done three and a half years ago.
	It has been clearly demonstrated that the democratic process in Ireland, or anywhere else for that matter, cannot survive with political parties operating private armies.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for presenting the order. When the elections took place on 26th November, a majority of those who were elected were in favour of proceeding with the Belfast agreement. That is absolutely clear—approximately 70 per cent of those elected were in favour of pursuing the Belfast agreement. The order is about paying the people who were elected on that day. I well understand the concerns about whether the Assembly sits or not and whether people should be paid if it does not.
	As the Minister indicated, there is the representative role. I am not clear about the extent to which the MLAs will be taking up that representative role. It seems to me that they could be encouraged to do so and I shall be interested to hear her view on that. The constituents of the MLAs will have all kinds of concerns and I want to be certain that the MLAs, although not sitting in an Assembly, have access to government as representatives of the people. It seems to me that they ought to have. It may well be that being involved in the real lives of their constituents may lead to people being concerned that the Assembly is not sitting and that it should do so and should work.
	I, too, hope that the talks process will now work well and that we can get the Assembly sitting. It is important that the review takes place, not least as regards the designation of people and the silly position which the alliance had to take in allying itself with one group in order that the Assembly could sit on an earlier occasion. But if, in effect, the Assembly does not sit, how long should the order last and what further mechanisms will there be? The Assembly is supposedly to run for four years. I should hate to think that four years would elapse and that, in effect, the order would remain in place.
	However, we are in uncharted territory because the election was called on the basis that there would be a devolved Assembly. I do not believe that any of us quite understands why it did not work, but the choreography was such that there was supposed to be a devolved Assembly and that is why the election was called. Let us hope that no one can now say that this group is not representative of the Northern Ireland people. The Members were elected a week or so ago under a fairly decent electoral system and therefore it should be possible for them to be seen as the people who need to get on with that job.
	Therefore, from these Benches, for now we agree with the order. However, sadly, there may need to be some modification if we do not see the progress for which we all hope.

Lord Laird: My Lords, it is with a measure of frustration that we find ourselves debating such an order once again. As I said earlier, 13 months have now passed since the suspension of the Assembly and, despite the recent election, we are, frankly, no further on.
	When a candidate is elected to a democratic institution—to which many in this Chamber can personally relate—he enters into a contract with the electorate. Salaries are dispensed in return for a genuine and steadfast commitment to constituency matters. A Member's salary is as much a part of the democratic infrastructure as the elections themselves.
	However, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the doors to Northern Ireland's democratic infrastructure—in the form of a workable Assembly—remain closed. We have had an election; we now have Assembly Members; yet, the other side of the bargain—the debating Chamber, the committees and even the corridor conversations—is not available. Your Lordships may well be aware that the Assembly door remains closed because, despite thirteen-and-a-half months of negotiations, republicans have yet to deliver the Prime Minister's "acts of completion"—the end of their so-called war.
	Now, I do not wish to detract from the good work that many Members do from their respective offices, dealing with constituency matters. Yet, without the framework of the Assembly and its institutions, such work effectively falls on deaf ears. No Assembly Member has the authority to change legislation, to make or achieve concessions on issues of concern to the electorate or even to question others. It remains our job, in this House and in another place, to discuss, debate and legislate on behalf of the citizens of Northern Ireland.
	The current Assembly Members certainly deserve our support and, indeed, a salary, but the Government cannot ignore the growing public disquiet over what may be regarded as an unnecessary perk. People find it increasingly difficult to accept that Members of a suspended Assembly can still enjoy their salaries, and I therefore urge the Lord President of the Council to consider that such a situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. We must have some kind of time-limit on how long salaries, albeit at a reduced rate, will be paid. Such a limit may even provide the necessary incentive for Members and parties to work swiftly to achieve the desired restoration of the Assembly. Is the Lord President of the Council in a position to tell us how long the Government expect Members to be entitled to remuneration under the current circumstances and whether they are now prepared to consider implementing a time-limit?
	As I said while debating another Northern Ireland order a few weeks ago, there is great potential that we shall see another election to the Assembly in a few months' time. If so, we shall effectively have allowed Members to receive salaries for, say, six months, only to stop the payments while we go to the polls once again. A further election will undoubtedly bring additional changes to the list of Members. Thus, we may well see a situation where Members who have been paid not to sit in the Assembly then lose their seats—a first for a democratic process.
	One effect of the suspension of the Assembly is that, once again, we in this building are responsible for scrutinising the Government's activities in Northern Ireland. One method of doing so is by tabling parliamentary Questions. I must express dissatisfaction with many of the replies which, in my view, verge on being incorrect or misleading or simply not answered. I cite the example of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure as being guilty of such crimes. I ask the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council to look into those matters.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, it seems that the order is largely technical and, therefore, acceptable. I hope that I shall be in order if I range slightly further afield than its text. The results of the election in Northern Ireland can hardly have been surprising to many people. It is clear to me that negotiations are likely to be quite long and arduous before any devolved government are restored.
	I considered it encouraging that the Democratic Unionist Party, as currently the largest party, is reported to be talking both to the Government of the Republic of Ireland and, I believe, also to Her Majesty's Government. However, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House give us an indication, however vague, of when, in her view, the Assembly might sit? I suggest that it could fulfil a number of useful functions. It could, for example, discuss the review of the Belfast agreement. Surely it would be better to do that in an open, face-to-face, way rather than by simply circulating memoranda and perhaps having occasional conversations with Ministers. The Assembly could also discuss the numerous reports of the many quangos that exist in Northern Ireland, and I suggest that it could also question Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office on the affairs of their departments.
	I very much hope that it will be possible for the Government, by means of various confidence-building measures, both to decrease the distrust which the noble Lord on the Opposition Bench mentioned and to show that practical ways can be devised of power-sharing within the existing institutions that are not suspended. I have been in correspondence with the Secretary of State on this matter and I should be grateful for whatever response the noble Baroness the Leader of the House can give us.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, on the subject of the order, I was not sure from the account given by the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council of the precise chronology and why 5th December was the date substituted, although I entirely understood why a date had to be substituted. I thought I had heard the noble Baroness say—of course, I may have misheard—that 6th December was the last date on which the Assembly would have needed to meet. Therefore, my question is why 5th December, in particular, was chosen. I infer from the fact that it was the last date that there could have been an earlier date subsequent to the election result being declared.
	I have a mild personal interest in this matter in an academic sense. In July 1989, on the Monday of a particular week, my appointment as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was announced. But it so happened that the late Lord Younger, who was the Secretary of State for Defence, was obliged to remain in that post for the whole of that week in order to take the Russian Minister of Defence—the first visit ever to this country by a Russian Minister of Defence—around the country and for the office not to be delegated to his successor, my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater, who was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time. I hasten to say that I did not check my own salary over the four days but I did not kiss hands with the Secretary of State until the Friday. I assume I was paid at the lower rate during the four days. Four days is not much and only eight days, by my calculation, is the relevant gap in this particular instance. However, I am interested in the answer to this small query as to why 5th December was chosen unless, as I say, I misheard what the Minister said originally.
	As regards the background to the order, I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. I do not want in any way to carp and I understand the path that events take in Northern Ireland. However, we may be paying a high retrospective price for the hand-written commitments that the Prime Minister gave during the 1998 referendum, a facsimile of which I continue to carry on my person as I have done ever since the events. It is arguable that at least one of those commitments was not within his power to guarantee and in so far as it was, was not precisely pursued. But we are where we are and I join my noble friend in hoping that we can work our way through these matters.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to the debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the situation is difficult. We cannot allow it to continue indefinitely. That is precisely why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is engaged in intensive discussion.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, it is clear that almost 70 per cent of those who voted at the Assembly elections voted for pro-agreement parties. It is very important indeed that we bear that in mind. We shall continue in discussions with all the parties to seek a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that it is important that we build trust and confidence. I entirely agree with him.
	As regards the access that Members of the Assembly will have, I was in Northern Ireland last Friday and met four Members of the Assembly. In discussion they spoke of the importance of their constituency role and the role they would have in any review. I can confirm that newly-elected Assembly Members will have the same rights of access to government departments in order to raise constituency concerns as they would if the Assembly were restored. Arrangements for that have been put in place.
	The noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Laird, both pressed me on the issue of timing, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I hope that noble Lords will accept that it is very difficult for me to put any kind of time limit on this. As I said originally, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is involved in discussions which we hope will lead to a resolution as quickly as possible. However, we all recognise what a sensitive time this is.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, raised the issue of Written Answers. I am happy to discuss that with the noble Lord in the light of his concerns about the quality of information he has received. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the way that Assembly Members might be able to engage in the review process. The format for review is currently under discussion. I am sure that the point raised by him will be taken on board.
	As regards the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I said in my speech that 5th December was chosen as it is the latest date on which the first meeting of the Assembly could have taken place. I hope I shall be able to answer the question. Under normal circumstances the Assembly must first meet within eight days of polling day including polling day and not including a weekend. That is where the eight-day time limit came from. I recognise that the noble Lord asked why we did not choose an earlier date. I think that the date was chosen on the basis that it was the last day on which the Assembly could have sat. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question. If it does not, I shall write to him. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Audit (Wales) Bill [HL]

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The purpose of this Bill is to create a unitary public audit structure for Wales. Its provisions have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation. Both exercises demonstrated that the Bill has widespread support. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee gave consideration to it as did an ad hoc National Assembly scrutiny committee. The Welsh Grand Committee and the National Assembly in plenary have debated it. The Government want the Bill to be as robust as possible and I can assure noble Lords that very careful consideration will be given to their views and concerns expressed in this debate and in further stages of the Bill in this House.
	The Bill seeks to achieve a unitary audit framework by extending the functions conferred on the Auditor General for Wales. Most importantly, the Auditor General will take on the majority of the functions in Wales of the Audit Commission for local government and the NHS in England and Wales. The Auditor General and his staff will be known as the Wales Audit Office in English or Y Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru in Welsh.
	The Audit Commission will, however, retain its powers to undertake cross-border economy, efficiency, and effectiveness studies relating to local government on an England and Wales basis. In bringing forward this Bill the Government are supporting the National Assembly in establishing a transparent public audit framework in Wales with a single thread of accountability. It is a framework that can be readily understood by the people of Wales and that can best protect their interests in terms of the effective stewardship of public money.
	The Government of Wales Act 1998 provides that the Auditor General has or can be given statutory responsibility for undertaking the statutory audit of the financial accounts of the National Assembly for Wales, the Assembly's sponsored public bodies, and certain other bodies the Assembly funds. It also gives the Auditor General statutory responsibility for undertaking examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which these bodies have used their resources. These examinations are more commonly known as value-for-money examinations or studies.
	The Auditor General's power to undertake value-for-money examinations extends to the National Health Service in Wales but the Auditor General does not currently have statutory responsibility for the financial audit of individual NHS bodies' accounts. Responsibility for arranging these audits currently rests with the Audit Commission.
	Under the provisions of the Public Audit (Wales) Bill the Wales Audit Office will have a duty to: carry out the audit of NHS bodies' accounts in Wales—this will sit alongside the Auditor General's existing function of carrying out value-for-money examinations on such bodies; appoint auditors to audit the accounts of local government bodies in Wales—the Auditor General will not be able to appoint himself or herself in a personal capacity as auditor of a local government body; undertake or promote value-for- money studies on local government bodies in Wales; and finally, undertake the audit of Welsh local government "programme for improvement" plans and inspections under best value legislation in the Local Government Act 1999.
	Clause 1 will enable the National Assembly by order to transfer to, or to ask the Auditor General to exercise on its behalf, its supervisory functions in respect of public bodies or registered social landlords in Wales. Such an order may only be made with the consent of the Auditor General, and any such order would be subject to scrutiny under the National Assembly's subordinate legislative scrutiny procedures. Examples of such functions would be the regulatory and monitoring functions the Assembly has in respect of the governance of registered social landlords and its functions of monitoring compliance with terms and conditions of grant funding by grant recipient organisations.
	The Bill will also enable the Welsh audit office to undertake cross-sectoral and forward-looking value-for-money studies and studies into the provision of public sector services which can help to inform Assembly policy development. The Auditor General's existing value-for-money powers are largely retrospective in nature. They relate, first, to how a body or office has used resources and, secondly, how it has undertaken value-for-money examinations and studies into higher and further education corporations, other educational bodies and local government bodies in Wales at their request. They enable the Auditor General to appoint a member of his staff to audit the accounts of a higher or further education corporation in Wales, on request. Finally, it is agreed with the National Assembly to undertake programmes of economy, efficiency and effectiveness studies in respect of registered social landlords in Wales. Those functions are at present exercised in relation to Wales by the Audit Commission.
	The Bill is a natural extension of the devolutionary process. The National Assembly has forged a distinctive way of developing and undertaking its work. The Assembly has been progressively formulating its policy and pursuing delivery of its strategic objectives through partnership working with other areas of the public sector—both local government and non-local government—the voluntary sector and the private sector in Wales.
	Innovative programmes such as Communities First and the Wales waste strategy are excellent examples of initiatives entailing close cross-sectoral co-operation in achieving strategic goals. Such partnership working can create complex accounting arrangements that are more conducive to a single public audit framework than the existing arrangements, where responsibility is split between the Auditor General and the Audit Commission.
	A unitary arrangement, with expertise "under one roof" will also help the development and implementation of audit best practice across the public sector in Wales.
	The Bill was first published in draft form on 3rd April this year and has been subject to both pre-legislative scrutiny by the House of Commons and the National Assembly. It has also been subject to a 12-week period of public consultation. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have met with noble Lords to discuss and brief them on its provisions.
	As I have mentioned, neither the pre-legislative scrutiny process nor public consultation revealed any significant concerns over the policy of the Bill. More than 200 organisations were consulted on the draft Bill and 15 responses were received. In all, 41 recommendations for change or clarification were made. Of these, 19 have been accepted. They improve consistency of practice between non-local government and local government audit arrangements; strengthen the ability of audit and regulatory bodies to co-operate; and clarify certain existing powers. I can search later documents showing the 22 points not accepted if that would be of interest to your Lordships.
	A key change that has been made as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny is an alignment of the provisions in Clauses 11, 18 and 52 to ensure that auditors in both the local government and the non-local government sectors have common powers of access to documents and information. The access provisions also ensure that auditors have the right to follow the audit trail of documents to the end recipient of public sector funding.
	That is consistent with the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in his report, Holding to Account: The Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government, published in February 2001.
	At pre-legislative scrutiny stage there was significant discussion on whether Clause 54 of the Bill should be deleted. Clause 54 restricts the disclosure of information obtained by an auditor of a local government body except in specified circumstances. The clause mirrors Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. Both impose criminal sanctions on a person who releases information in contravention of the legislation.
	The purpose of the clause is to prevent the premature release of information that is still subject to verification and potentially prejudicial in nature. There is no such restriction on the Auditor General for Wales in relation to information concerning the Assembly or any other public body in Wales, outside the local government sector. In these cases verification and release of information is subject to protocol arrangements. The accounting officer of the National Assembly or an Assembly-sponsored public body is given an opportunity to sign off draft reports prepared by the Auditor General, to indicate that he or she is content with the factual accuracy of the text prior to publication. The Assembly's audit committee can therefore be satisfied that in taking evidence on reports there is agreement on the factual content.
	The Government's view is that Clause 54 should be retained. If it were deleted from the Bill, Section 49 of the Audit Commission Act would remain in force in England and there would be potential for inconsistency in the application of the criminal law between England and Wales. The Government consider that, for this reason, further consideration of disclosure matters should be on an England/Wales basis. The criminal law is not a field in which powers have been generally devolved in respect of Wales.
	Against that background, the Government consider that it would be a nonsense to allow a situation in which the same conduct if committed in England would be regarded as so blameworthy as to be potentially punishable with two years' imprisonment, but if committed in Wales would not be a criminal offence.
	There has been some concern expressed that the opportunity has not been taken to update certain audit and accounting terminology and practice. The Government consider that the Bill delivers significant improvements; for instance, common and enhanced access rights for auditors across the central and local government sectors in Wales; the opportunity it presents for greater co-operation and joint working; and the ability for a non-local government auditor to publish a public interest report.
	The Public Audit (Wales) Bill is, however, a Wales-only Bill with the primary purpose of establishing unitary audit arrangements for Wales. The Government have been careful to avoid any changes to audit terminology that may cause confusion or uncertainty on a cross-border basis. Changes in such issues should, in the Government's view, be considered over a wider canvas.
	The Government are very mindful of the importance of preserving the constitutional independence of local government in the changes they propose. I have already mentioned that the Bill does not enable the Auditor General to appoint himself or herself in a personal capacity as auditor of a local government body.
	In addition, the National Assembly audit committee, which has responsibility for considering the Auditor General's annual estimate of income and expenditure, will have no power to consider or modify his or her estimates regarding local government. These will be a matter for the Auditor General and local government in Wales.
	Clause 21 includes a provision for the National Assembly to set the scales of audit fees for local government bodies in Wales, but this is very much a failsafe power to be exercised only in the event of a failure to agree between the Auditor General and Welsh local government. Clause 21, in any event, mirrors a power already available to the Assembly under Section 7 of the Audit Commission Act by virtue of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999.
	Likewise, the Auditor General will not be required to lay any financial reports relating to local government before the Assembly. This will not affect the Assembly's ability to consider reports on local government matters that may be published by the Auditor General, in the same way that the Assembly can currently consider reports published by the Audit Commission.
	The Welsh Local Government Association in both its evidence at pre-legislative scrutiny stage and in its response to public consultation expressed itself content with the safeguards that have been built into the Bill.
	Effective public audit is essential to ensuring that the highest standards of probity and regard for obtaining value for money are observed in the spending of taxpayers' money. Improvement of public audit standards requires co-operation between audit and regulatory organisations and the free-flow of ideas and best practice. The Public Audit Forum, upon which all the major public audit bodies in the United Kingdom are represented, does extremely valuable work in this area.
	It is essential that a single audit body for Wales is firmly within the mainstream of public audit development and inter-body co-operation. To this end, a key feature of the Bill is provisions that will allow the Auditor General to co-operate freely with other audit and regulatory bodies.
	As I have mentioned, the Audit Commission will retain its powers under the Audit Commission Act to undertake cross-border value-for-money studies on an England and Wales basis in the local government context. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 empowers the Commission for Healthcare, Audit and Inspection to undertake parallel cross-border studies on an England and Wales basis in the health sector.
	As we see from the Bill, the Audit Commission, the Commission for Healthcare, Audit and Inspection and the Auditor General would be linked by a network of duties of consultation and co-operation designed to ensure that such work is undertaken in the most efficient and effective discharge of their respective functions. The Audit Commission and the Commission for Healthcare, Audit and Inspection would also be required to take account of relevant work undertaken by the Auditor General in undertaking such work.
	Within Wales, the National Assembly and the Auditor General would also be under a mutual duty to co-operate where appropriate in the planning of social services and healthcare studies and inspection work.
	Clause 2 of the Bill also gives the Auditor General, a wide range of accountancy bodies, public bodies and certain auditors the power to co-operate and provide assistance to each other in the exercise of their particular functions. This power would extend, for instance, to Audit Scotland and the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.
	Clause 2 also enables the Auditor General to enter into arrangements with any government department, any local or other public authority or the holder of any public office to exercise the functions of that body or office or to provide services to it. Furthermore, such bodies may provide services to the Auditor General. The types of services that may be provided are administrative, professional or technical services.
	The consultative and co-operative provisions included in the Bill will ensure consistency of audit practice and standards across geographical boundaries and a continued basis for cross-border comparison with regard to value for money in the provision of services.
	They will also ensure a more co-ordinated and focused approach to the programming and undertaking of audit work. This should reduce the administrative burden on the client organisations without diminishing the rigour of audit and inspection standards.
	Joint reviews are already a feature of such works in Wales and the Government are confident that the provisions they have put in place will promote further joint working.
	In conclusion, the proposals in the Public Audit (Wales) Bill have widespread support within the public sector. The principles of the Bill have the support of the Auditor General, the Audit Commission and the Welsh Local Government Association.
	A single audit body will provide a straightforward, accessible and largely all-embracing public audit framework that is best suited to the inclusive nature of policy development and delivery in Wales. It will be at the forefront of the wider development and implementation of best audit practice. It will also be best equipped to assist the National Assembly in continuing to strive to maintain the highest standards of financial accountability. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for taking us through the contents of the Bill with the thoroughness that we have come to expect from him and, indeed, for the preliminary discussion he arranged for interested Peers, together with his colleague, Mr. Don Touhig, the Minister responsible for the Bill in another place.
	I also thank the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in the other place for its helpful work on the draft Bill during the previous Session. I understand that the Government have yet to reply in full to its report but it has already culminated in a useful discussion in the Welsh Grand Committee on 15th July and a promise by the Government to consider some of its recommendations.
	The Government may have considered but, as far as I can see, they have not changed very much in the Bill. The controversial draft Clause 50 restricting public disclosure is still in the Bill—now as Clause 54—but we shall come to that issue again at a later stage.
	None of your Lordships would deny the importance of audit in the public and private sectors. An auditor's approval of accounts is always gratifying; an adverse qualification can strike terror in the stoutest heart. I therefore take great pride in the fact that my noble friend Lady Noakes, who reached the top of the accounting profession, is sitting beside me and will wind up the debate for the Opposition.
	As we have heard from the Minister, the Bill provides, in effect, that there will be a single audit body for Wales, headed by the Auditor General for Wales, currently Sir John Bourn, who fulfils a similar role for the United Kingdom. It is a Crown appointment. The ad hoc committee established by the National Assembly to consider the draft Bill recommended that the appointment should be made after consultation with the Assembly, but I understand that that would run counter to the rule that public corporate bodies cannot appoint their own auditors.
	The new Wales audit office—Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru—will be responsible for the financial and value-for-money audit of the National Assembly and the bodies that it sponsors, commonly referred to as quangos, and bodies concerned with health and local government, currently the province of the Audit Commission, and registered social housing providers.
	In one sense, the Bill concentrates enormous power in the Auditor General and his new office. But it is also a consolidation measure; it replicates existing powers in earlier legislation and brings them together under the Auditor General and his Wales audit office. This makes good sense and, in principle, the Bill is to be welcomed. It will have a fair wind as far as we on this side are concerned.
	I had occasion recently to read the Auditor General's report to the National Assembly on Financial Management of Partnership and Innovation and Development Projects by the National Council for Education and Training for Wales, better known by its acronym, ELWa, which in Welsh means to benefit or to profit. The report might have been alternatively titled, "The misfortunes of ELWa", because it is a sorry tale of inadequacies, deficiencies and weaknesses in the biggest quango in the Principality. I shall not rehearse the detail of what has become a public scandal, but simply assert that the whole saga proves the need for and the value of sound, independent audit examination in such circumstances.
	The high quality and worth of that report was, I am sure, appreciated by the Assembly and the public. It was prepared by the Wales team of the National Audit Office for the Auditor General to present to the Assembly. I am glad to read that the Auditor General's statutory authority to report to the Assembly on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which bodies have used their resources in discharging their functions continues and is incorporated at various points in the Bill. That is an all-important authority and carries important duties.
	The Auditor General's remit has, as the Minister said, been greatly widened in the Bill and he has been given an extensive range of new functions, especially in connection with health and local government. One cannot but contrast the puzzling restraints on him in the local government field with his freedom to act directly in the health sphere. For example, he cannot audit local government bodies himself: he must appoint others to audit, after consultation with the bodies concerned. Health trusts he can audit direct. We shall consider that more closely in Committee.
	However, the amalgamation of powers is right, because, as the Minister said, under the devolved government arrangements in Wales and the strategies being pursued, there is considerable interplay and collaboration between the Assembly Government, its quangos, local authorities and health service bodies. Audit arrangements, including best value and performance studies, are wide in their scope and likely to widen further.
	Audit must be able to follow partnership arrangements and trace the warp and weft of interactivity between authorities and beyond to contractors and sub-contractors. The Auditor General must be able to have an overall view and to cross different authority boundaries within Wales as well as outside.
	Audit arrangements for local government and the health service have already been spelt out in great detail in past legislation. The Bill in effect transfers responsibility from the Audit Commission to the Auditor General. Of course, local authorities' accountability to their local electorates must be respected and preserved, but that does not mean that they must be protected if malpractice—intended or unintended—is uncovered. There have been plenty of examples of such deficiencies in the past.
	Your Lordships would therefore be fully justified in revisiting past enactments relating to local government as transposed into the Bill. The same is true of legislation relating to the audit of health bodies. There is a plethora of such bodies in the NHS in Wales; that is promising territory for audit studies. We have a duty to ensure that the Auditor General and his office are not hindered or unnecessarily restricted in their ability to do such work.
	The new office, headed by the Auditor General, has great potential to improve the quality of public services and government in Wales and secure better use of resources. There is currently a lot of loose talk about giving the Assembly its own tax-raising powers, but that will never be acceptable to the Welsh electorate until people are convinced that the very best use is being made of the money that it already has. The Bill will help to ensure that that objective is achieved.
	Of course, there will be questions about the costs of bringing together the 45 staff of the National Audit Office and the 200 staff of the Audit Commission. We hope that that can be achieved within the Assembly's estimated—to my mind, somewhat optimistic—figure of £500,000 without building an ultra-grand Taj Mahal to house the new office. We also hope that the running costs can be paid for by fees and charges, with a minimal subvention from the Assembly. There will also be questions about the precise relationship between the new office and the Assembly, its audit committee, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and other bodies with whom the Auditor General is obliged to co-operate and they with him.
	Finally, there is more to the Bill than meets the eye, but the key to its success lies in the Auditor General's independence from unacceptable political pressures rigorously to pursue his clearly defined functions and ensure that taxpayers' money is not only properly applied but used to best advantage, within the limitations imposed by the policies themselves. There, of course, lies the rub but if the policies are wrong, audit studies will help to reveal their shortcomings. We welcome the Bill's Second Reading in the firm belief that it will benefit the people of Wales and, indeed, the United Kingdom.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Evans for his characteristically careful exposition of this modest piece of legislation. I welcome the creation of a single public audit body for Wales. My noble friend summed it up as a natural extension of the devolution process—indeed, as the widening of the remit and independence of the Auditor General. I am also grateful for the Explanatory Notes provided.
	I happen to possess a most interesting print of the building on the eastern side of New Palace Yard, dated 1808, with part of its caption stating:
	"the first entrance from the Water Gate leads to the Auditor of Wales's office".
	So we are today building on old foundations, although the Auditor General is housed nearer to Cardiff Bay than to the ancient Water Gate on the Thames. However, this useful measure is unlikely to set either the Thames or the Taff on fire.
	Although Parliament is presently solely entrusted with enacting primary legislation for Wales, I believe that our role is severely limited—or should be. If the Assembly wants it, and the Government, as sponsors of a Bill, agree with it, the Assembly should have it. Parliament should not strain unduly—better still, not at all—to amend a Bill if it is properly prepared. Whatever our strengths on individual matters, we should not second-guess the Assembly if we can possibly help it.
	We are not privy to the discussions between the two Governments, but I very much welcome my noble friend's promise that, if necessary, he will circulate the 22 points that were not accepted. That is of fundamental importance, because I wanted to ask him to what extent the measure was totally acceptable to the Welsh Assembly Government: was anything left out that they desired or put in with which they were unhappy? My noble friend most helpfully dealt with what were my concerns. Such a paper should be placed in the Library, so that all should see it.
	The greatest service that the Government can provide is to ensure transparency, because if there are fundamental points of difference that calls into question the efficacy and validity of the present constitutional arrangements. Of importance also is the acceptability of the proposals to the other organisations affected. I welcome very much the noble Lord's remarks regarding the Welsh Local Government Association. Similarly, to what extent are the health bodies and publicly funded bodies as content as the Welsh Local Government Association? A general memorandum of understanding on transparency would be of considerable help to the House in its role of judging future legislation.
	My disappointment is that the gracious Speech contains only one measure directed specifically and solely to Wales—and a modest one at that. I know the pressures on the Government's business managers. I have attended, for my sins, Cabinet legislation committees since 1964—slightly after the ark; some would say before it—and seen many Ministers' worthy legislative proposals thrown aside for lack of time. But that is the purpose of the Secretary of State for Wales—to fight for Wales in Cabinet; he has hardly any other real functions. By any standards, this is a pretty poor reward for his efforts. The Secretary of State, in Committee discussions on the Government of Wales Bill as far back as 1998, said that the problem of the Auditor General was "not a great crowd-puller". As I am sure both Houses will confirm, this Bill is not a great crowd-puller either. The Secretary of State certainly had foresight in that respect.
	My noble friend Lord Richard has provided me with a list of Welsh government Bills put in as bids for the 2003–04 legislative programme. They include an education Bill, an ombudsman Bill, a tourism registration Bill, a transport Bill and a Bill to prohibit smoking in public places. Professor Hazell, in his evidence to the Richard commission, stated that only a quarter of Welsh Bills found their place in the Government's legislative programme.
	It is no good, on this issue, the Secretary of State saying that the Westminster Government prefer voluntary smoking bans to legislation. That is a failure on his part to comprehend what devolution is about. Health is a devolved matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, advised the House last week. Smoking is a vital component of health. Until Primary legislation is passed, that vital part of health is outwith the powers of the Welsh Assembly. It is a quirk of the agreement that it is not within its province.
	History in the long term does not seem to be the First Minister's strong point. To boast that before devolution we had only one all-Wales Bill every 10 years, and to go on to spin that the present offer is either a 1000 per cent improvement or a 500 per cent improvement, is not a particularly intellectually challenging assertion. He should take a longer view. In my five years as Secretary of State, we had a Welsh Development Agency Bill, the Development of Rural Wales Bill, a substantial part of a general Bill to create the Land Authority for Wales and the two ill-fated devolution Bills. Those were the kind of primary legislation that I believed was needed in my five years of office. However, the Welsh Assembly and the Government are to be congratulated on making good use of piggybacking by putting specific Welsh proposals into England/Wales legislation in recent years. Can my noble friend tell us whether, in addition to this modest Bill, we can expect further piggybacking in this Session?
	In my recent speech to Welsh lawyers in Cardiff, without in any way entering into the argument of whether there should be more powers to the Welsh Assembly, I pointed out that the greater the activity of the Assembly leading to demands for primary legislation, the greater the embarrassment when legislative slots are not found in Westminster under the present system. I went on to say that, if the position is not easy now, how much more difficult it will be should there be a colour of government in Westminster different from that in Cardiff. It may be optimistic to expect to hear tonight the Government's thoughts on that, but we should be told something of their thoughts on tackling what I regard as a legislative log jam.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, for a comprehensive and meticulous introduction to the Bill, which appears slightly dry on first reading. The noble Lord delivered his speech with his characteristic clarity, which has been helpful. Consultation on the Bill has been wide and comprehensive, so I do not wish to detain the House for long.
	As eloquently expounded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, this is one of five Bills requested by the Assembly but the only one to feature in Her Majesty's gracious Speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said, the estimated set-up cost for the changes under this Bill is half a million pounds. I hope that the Minister can give accurate information on that and on any hidden costs, as well as accurate predictions of running costs.
	The Auditor General will report to the Assembly. I hope that the report will be debated in the Assembly in plenary, prior to approval by resolution. It is important that the Auditor General is a Crown appointment to ensure independence. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has pointed out that the House of Commons has a role in vetting the Prime Minister's nomination for the post of Comptroller and Auditor General. Will the Minister clarify whether the Assembly will have the opportunity to debate the suitability of the Government's appointee, so that the Assembly may have ownership of the process from the beginning?
	The Auditor General will face a huge task. Will the Minister reassure us that the office is adequately resourced with access to appropriate expertise as required? I was glad to hear the Minister say that the new office will liaise closely over cross-border issues with English and Scottish counterparts to ensure consistency of methodology and standards throughout the UK.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred to the importance of attention to detail in the relationship between government in England and Wales, and, I would like to add, attention to governance issues between England and Wales as well. If there is variation in the way data are collected, interpreted and communicated, wide misinterpretation will occur throughout the UK. Such misinterpretations and unfounded perceptions may either conceal or exaggerate inequalities. The Bill has been generally welcomed. I add my welcome to it and look forward to seeing the list of points that were not accepted during the consultation.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the painstaking way in which he introduced the Bill. Boring the Bill may be, but it is not modest, I respectfully say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, because it covers an important and vital function in government. To take up the noble and learned Lord's theme, this is only the third specific piece of primary legislation since the creation of the National Assembly. We have had the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001 and the Health (Wales) Act 2003, which do not amount to a quarter of the Bills that have been bid for. Only three out of 16 potential measures, which have been debated in plenary sessions in March of each of the three years from 2001 to 2003, have been introduced. Those Bills cover education, land use, housing, passenger transport, tourism, an ombudsman and other areas.
	The Minister himself referred to all the initiatives—such as those for community first and a Wales waste strategy—that should have a legislative framework surrounding them; crowd-pulling those initiatives are. They may not be the crowds that we can expect when Wales wins the World Cup, but those initiatives require legislative measures.
	The process whereby the National Assembly secures the primary legislation that it wants is slow, cumbersome, inefficient and not particularly effective. Therefore, it is no surprise that Wales has trailed behind Scotland and Northern Ireland in unifying its audit functions.
	Another aspect of this matter is that, in draft form, the Bill has been scrutinised—very fully—by the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee and the Welsh Assembly ad hoc committee. It will now go through all of the parliamentary stages at Westminster. It reminds me of my pupil master, the brother of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, his honour Judge Eifion Roberts, who told me that, in his first three or four weeks at the Bar, he had no work and neither did anyone else in his Chambers. At the very end of that period, a brief for a guilty plea came in and was subjected to the most incredible scrutiny by four anxious, young and concerned barristers that any guilty plea has ever received. It is rather like that with the legislation that finally gets here.
	How much simpler it would be if a Welsh Bill were presented to the Assembly and then, after its preliminary stages, were referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses at Parliament here in Westminster for debate and comment—although not for amendment—and then returned to the Assembly for enactment. That would be a far simpler way of dealing with the legislative processes and primary legislation than we have at the moment. I have said in this House before, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, that the National Assembly should have the Bill it wants. It is not our job to start bringing in other considerations. I look forward to hearing from the Richard commission about proposals for granting further legislative powers to the Assembly.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, also referred to the piggy-backing way in which we try to introduce measures at the moment. I prefer to think of it differently. My grandson was born at about the time that the National Assembly came into being. A month or two ago, I was very pleased and proud to see him throw away his stabilisers and ride his bicycle on two wheels. Within a fortnight, he rode four miles along the river Dee just to show what he could do. It is time that the National Assembly threw away the stabilisers that have been imposed on it and locked on to it. It should be given its head.
	We give the Bill a broad welcome. In particular, we welcome the powers in Clause 11 to extend the Auditor General's right of access to documents and the benefit of assistance, information and explanation in respect of any of these transactions. It will apply to all bodies, including local government bodies. I believe that the Bill did not initially extend to local government, so that is one of the results of the scrutiny of the draft Bill. It follows the recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Sharman of Redlynch in his report, Holding to Account, to which the Minister referred.
	As the purpose of the Bill is to create a single public audit body for Wales, it is inconsistent to apply different standards of transparency. Why have the Government not followed the recommendation made by the Welsh Affairs Committee in paragraphs 33 to 35 of its report and by the Auditor General that what was Clause 50—now Clause 54—should be deleted? Why should there be a distinction between the position of the National Assembly and public bodies accountable to it and local government in the way in which a report should be publicised? Has the lobbying by the Labour dinosaurs on the Welsh Local Government Association persuaded the Government to stick with the clause? Was it a desire, as the Minister suggested, to conform to the existing provisions, which will continue to apply to England? I shall come back to that point.
	Clause 54 places restrictions on the disclosure of information relating to a particular body or other person, if an audit study or inspection relating to a local authority is being carried out. I have tried to find out the rationale behind that, apart from the fact that it has been that way since 1972 in England and Wales. The rationale was set out in the evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee on behalf of the Welsh Local Government Association in questions 15 to 17 of the committee's report. I glean from it that the restriction on the disclosure of information is of constitutional significance. It is a special provision, which recognises that local government has a separate institutional mandate—in other words, local government members are elected separately.
	The association argued that it was for the electorate, not an auditor, to decide whether it was satisfied with the services provided. It pointed to the tendency of the Audit Commission to condemn local councils and said that, therefore, it should be open to a local authority to refuse to consent to the publication of condemnatory reports, as a constitutional right. That is muddled thinking. The Auditor General is the guardian of the public interest, not the institution that is being inspected. It is for him to decide when and how he should publish his conclusions. Certainly, he should adopt the sort of protocol that applies to national government, which will require him to ensure that bodies or persons criticised have a right to comment on the factual accuracy of a report prior to publication, but an institution such as a local authority should not have a right to suppress publication of the details.
	From time to time, there has been evidence of fraud and corruption. One can think of specific local authorities that it is not necessary to name. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said about the matter: fraud should be rooted out and exposed at the earliest opportunity, to protect public funds and as a warning to others. The matter was put to Professor Colin Talbot, who gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. He said that he did not think that there should be a difference between the two tiers of government—the National Assembly and local government. He said:
	"My general reaction to these things is we should have disclosure rather than not. Unless there is a very good reason why information should not be disclosed it ought to be in the public domain".
	Professor Colin Talbot advises the Public Administration Committee. He went on:
	"For far too long in the UK we have had standards operating at national and central government levels and local government which are different from one another and in my view there is no justification for that. In my view, historically most of those have been Whitehall trying to cover its back and make sure that it is not exposed to various things. In this particular case it is a restriction on information at local government level and I do not think either should be availing themselves of those sorts of protections. If it is public money, the public ought to have a right to know where it is going".
	We on these Benches fully endorse that.
	When the honourable Mr Touhig spoke at the Welsh Grand Committee on 15th July, we had hoped that he would take that on board. He said:
	"Local government auditors have particular responsibility to local electors. We wanted to debate the matter before considering the proper way forward . . . I certainly intend to consider the matter further in light of the comments made this morning and in the report".—[Official Report, Commons Welsh Grand Committee, 15/7/03; col. 17.]
	We had hoped that he would take on board this consensus of view.
	However, just now we heard from the Minister that the purpose of the clause is to prevent premature release of information that may be of a prejudicial nature and that it is inconsistent with what is happening in England. I rejoice that it is inconsistent with what is happening in England. If it is a good public policy for Wales, it should be adopted.
	Perhaps I may also underline the call from the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for the absolute independence of the Auditor General. One can understand from where the Welsh Local Government Association came; it expressed the view that the Auditor General as an individual would be too powerful. Mr Sandy Blair, who gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on question 7, said:
	"the legislation should require there to be a body to which the Auditor General pays attention in terms of developing the scope and culture of the organisation and the direction of activity which he or she can consult when being asked to examine new approaches and a body which itself is representative to a certain extent of the stakeholders interested in the activities of the Auditor General".
	In other words, put a clamp on the Auditor General with a committee of interested parties. Rightly, that has not been adopted by the Government; I commend them for it. Nor have they adopted Councillor Russell Goodway's call for an elected Auditor General based on the American model. I can just imagine the excitement in Gresford at an election between two auditors for the Auditor General of the whole of Wales; how we would clear out the Griffin pub to ensure that everyone voted before the polls closed. What a ludicrous idea!
	Perhaps I may make one final comment. I welcome the fact that the responsibility for best value compliance inspections—or "whole authority analyses", as they are called in the jargon—passes in Wales to the Auditor General. I hope that such inspections will promote the Welsh procurement initiative that has won the prestigious 2003 public sector award for procurement excellence from the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply. There was, of course, a partnership government in being when that award was gained; namely, the partnership between those opposite and my party. The judges commented:
	"The scale and innovation of the Welsh procurement initiative project, with its vision of change for the whole public sector in Wales, won over the judges in this category. The initiative's work on collaborative procurement brings together, for the first time in the UK, the procurement activities of a country's public sector".
	The public sector must place its contracts in the bigger, wider context of the local economy—the Welsh economy—in which it operates. The Auditor General must see his role in best-value inspections as promoting the interests of the Welsh economy in the broadest sense. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this will be within his remit.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, this has been a small debate in terms of the numbers contributing but that is in no way an indication of the level of the debate, which has been high throughout. I find myself a lone English person among these Welsh wizards. Certainly, I shall not attempt to say anything in Welsh, like my noble friend Lord Roberts and the Minister.
	We were privileged to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who was a former Secretary of State for Wales. He spoke with considerable authority. In particular, we support his call for transparency. In that context, we look forward to receiving the details of the points that were not taken on the board by the Government and incorporated in the Bill. We are grateful for the offer made by the Minister.
	As my noble friend said, my experience lies in audit, in particular from a private sector professional perspective. However, I want to make it clear that I do not feel that I have any interest to declare because my professional involvement is now firmly in the past. Indeed, nowadays I tend to see auditors from the vantage point of chairing or serving on audit committees. I can assure the House that no longer do I feel that I represent the auditor side of the table.
	Let me restate the position set out so elegantly by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. We welcome the Bill and shall not oppose its general direction. In particular, we support the concentration of audit resource so that when considering public money in Wales, we are clear that one supreme audit institution is involved. We believe that this is a solution which will avoid gaps and overlaps and will promote efficiency.
	I have often felt that the audit arrangements for England have a rather Heath Robinson quality to them. When in government, my party invented the Audit Commission to tackle issues regarding local government finances. I have forgotten why, at that stage, a separate body was set up rather than an extension of the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We then added to that by passing health audit over to the Audit Commission, despite the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General both had and retains responsibility for reporting on the NHS overall. Since then, the current Government have both extended the remit of the Audit Commission by making it the inspection body for local government, and then cut it down again by making the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection the body responsible for national value for money studies in the NHS.
	I do not believe that the end result in England is rational. It leaves the Audit Commission as a somewhat ambiguous body—so ambiguous that, while it talks at length about "strategic regulation", the first page of its website contains not a single reference to its core function of audit. By contrast, the Comptroller and Auditor General still stands proudly on his platform of public audit, which is why it is particularly appropriate that the model which has been selected for Wales focuses in on what has been achieved for the Auditor General for Wales by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I hope that the Government will take time from their rather crowded legislative timetable to look again at the end result in terms of English public sector audit. There is much of value in the proposals set out in this Bill which could be carried over to England.
	Having given the Bill that welcome, I have to say that we feel that some areas of the Bill would benefit from the detailed scrutiny for which your Lordships' House is renowned. I have listened carefully to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about Welsh legislation, broadly to the effect that we should keep our sticky hands off legislation that comes from the Assembly. I should say that we believe that we are sticking to the current rules; that is, that a Bill in this House will be subject to the conventional levels of scrutiny. That is certainly what we plan to do.
	I shall not go through today all the areas that we shall raise in Committee, but I should like to touch on one or two issues that we shall want to pursue further. The first area is that of the independence of the Auditor General for Wales. Under Clause 2, the Auditor General for Wales can enter into arrangements to carry out the functions of or to provide services to a "relevant authority". Such relevant authorities are a government department or a local or public authority. Clause 9 removes the current prohibition in relation to the Assembly. So the Bill will empower the Auditor General for Wales to become intimately involved with the bodies that he will audit.
	However, that is potentially dangerous. There is a basic principle which should apply to all auditors, whether in the public or private sectors—that auditor independence must not be impaired. Auditor independence can be impaired by the provision of non-audit services, but that is what this Bill will allow. Independence can be impaired if the auditor has to judge his own work, which the Bill will also permit. So the Bill is potentially deficient because it does not limit the powers created by Clauses 2 and 9 to those situations that do not compromise auditor independence. The Explanatory Notes indicate in relation to Clause 9, and working with the Assembly, that there will be protocols that will counteract the provisions of the Bill. However, we would take some convincing that protocols would be sufficient to counteract the Bill, which potentially drives a coach and horses through auditor independence.
	The second area of concern is why the Government have taken a minimalist route to transferring audit functions in relation to health and local government to the Auditor General for Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, touched on some of these points. The Bill preserves the rather idiosyncratic differences between the way in which public audit is practised in relation to central and local government and health, thus embedding rather than improving the differences. The Welsh Affairs Committee in another place expressed disappointment that the opportunity had been missed to make Welsh audit a beacon of good audit practice, and we echo that sentiment.
	A detailed aspect of the slavish adherence to bolting on the Audit Commission model can be found in the way in which the Auditor General must appoint persons as auditors to local government bodies and cannot himself be appointed. My noble friend Lord Roberts has already referred to that. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether there is any rational explanation for that.
	Another issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred is the mirror image of the Audit Commission arrangements in Clause 54, which for local government audits alone sets up criminal sanctions in respect of the disclosure of information obtained during the audit of a local authority. I have heard no convincing explanation why that is required or why it has been carried over into the new Welsh public sector audit arrangements. I should have thought that was something that the Welsh would have happily left behind to the English.
	The Bill contains access rights under various clauses, which represents a welcome move to the principle set out in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. I am sorry that the noble Lord, who has done much to promote public sector audit, is not able to be in his place today. We believe that the access rights are extremely important and want to ensure that they are appropriately drafted in conjunction with Clause 54, as this is a golden opportunity to get access rights right in public sector audit. We will not let that opportunity be missed.
	My final topic today is the regulatory impact assessment. I often find that I am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who reads the regulatory impact assessments in detail. However, I have been deprived of that pleasure with this Bill, because the regulatory impact assessment is far from detailed. In fact, as far as I can ascertain, there is no regulatory impact assessment on this Bill.
	If one follows the Internet link referred to on page 33 of the Explanatory Notes, it reveals nothing more than the draft Bill and a regulatory assessment that was last updated on 12th April 2003. Yet Mr Touhig, the Minister in another place, said to the Welsh Grand Committee on 15th July 2003 that, in relation to the regulatory impact assessment:
	"A considerable amount of work has been done and it is ongoing".—[Official Report, Commons, Welsh Grand Committee, 15/7/03; col. 5.]
	It is surprising, therefore, that we do not have an updated regulatory impact assessment to accompany the Bill.
	Paragraph 145 of the Explanatory Notes says that there will be set-up costs of £500,000, but it seems to assume that there will be no other additional costs from the Wales Audit Office having to set up its own administrative functions. The new body will be small relative to its former parent bodies, and it seems odd that there will be no extra costs—in particular because it will have no scale economies. Curiously, we are told in paragraph 148 that the Assembly considers that there will be no additional budgetary costs. If the £500,000 is not a budgetary cost, I am mystified as to what it is. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also pressed the Minister on those costs and I hope that he will be able to reply.
	I have laboured my point not because £500,000 is a massive sum, but because the Government have not fully complied with their obligations to provide Parliament with a coherent and accurate account of the impact of their proposed measures. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide a better explanation, if not today, then in correspondence before Committee.
	Let me not end on a carping note. We do indeed welcome the thrust of the Bill and look forward to tackling the detail in Committee.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we have had a short but interesting debate on the Bill. Let me assure your Lordships that, given that the Bill has been welcomed by everybody, we will take away and consider all the points that have been raised, particularly those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because of her lifetime's experience and expertise in this very area. Although party politics quite often enter our deliberations, our intention to get this particular Bill absolutely right is genuine and we will look carefully at Hansard and consider all the points that have been raised before Committee.
	A single audit body approach is a logical extension of devolution in Wales. Unitary arrangements have already been put in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Before closing our debate, I pay tribute to both the Audit Commission in Wales and to the Auditor General and the staff of the National Audit Office for the excellent work that they have done, and continue to do, in upholding and improving the high standards of public accountability in Wales.
	I also welcome the way in which the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission have already worked together in helping to formulate the provisions of the Bill. It bodes well for the shared sense of identity and belonging that the Government are confident will underpin any unitary arrangements.
	The Wales audit office would comprise a wide pool of expertise and experience in different aspects of public audit that could only benefit auditing standards and practice in Wales. Accountability for public audit scrutiny in Wales will be clearly ascribed by the Bill. It will rest with a single head, the Auditor General. The Bill confers on the Auditor General accounting officer responsibilities for ensuring regularity and propriety in the work of the Wales audit office and for ensuring that it represents value for money in the way in which it is structured and operates.
	A number of bodies that responded to public consultation on the Bill expressed concern at what they perceive as the growing burden on them of successive audit, examination and inspection exercises. The co-operative and consultative provisions in the Bill will encourage a more strategic and inclusive approach to the forward planning and undertaking of audit, examination and inspection work.
	The Bill provides the opportunity for co-ordinating the programming of such work to reduce the burden on client organisations, without in any way diminishing the standards of financial accountability and governance that are expected of them. In its report on the draft Bill, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee recommended that the Auditor General and the Audit Commission be required in all cases to co-operate in the planning and undertaking of cross-border studies relating to local government. It also recommended that the resulting reports be produced jointly by both organisations.
	The Government have not fully accepted that recommendation because it could potentially reduce the flexibility of either body to initiate and progress work when appropriate. A duty to work jointly in all cases could have a restrictive, rather than a facilitative, effect.
	However, the Bill has been amended to require the Auditor General to co-operate with the Audit Commission on cross-border value-for-money studies and statutory impact studies undertaken under Clauses 41 and 42 where appropriate for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions. The Audit Commission Act has also been amended to require the commission to co-operate with the Auditor General on the same basis.
	The ancillary powers conferred on the Auditor General under Clause 2 of the Bill will enable the Wales audit office and a wide range of other bodies to collaborate and assist each other in joint working and the development of work in respect of corporate governance, better risk management and work on the consolidation of accounts. They will also enable the Auditor General to provide or receive professional, administrative and technical support; for example, payroll or personnel services or more specialist professional services such as database interrogation.
	Schedule 3 of the Bill fully accepts the principle that staff of the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office who transfer to the Wales audit office should do so on terms and conditions that are no less favourable, taken as a whole, than the terms and conditions on which they were employed immediately before the transfer. The detail of the staff transfer arrangements, along with the arrangements for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities involved in the merger will be set out in statutory transfer schemes made by order. The order-making power will be exercisable by statutory instrument that will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament.
	Clarification was also sought during consultation on whether the scope of the references to "documents" in the Bill include material in digital or electronic form. The Government intend the word "documents", as used in the Bill, to include material produced in any form technologically possible at the relevant time. Very careful consideration was given in the course of the preparation of the Bill to whether further words were necessary to make this intention express. The Government decided, after that very careful consideration, that they were not, and indeed that including some form of definition of documents in the Bill could cast doubt on the scope of such terms in other audit-related legislation in which no such definition has been inserted.
	I should like to deal briefly with some of the very interesting points raised in the debate, while recognising that I am not qualified or briefed to talk in great detail about some of the fascinating general points made on the legislative capability of the Welsh Assembly. It is, nevertheless, a very interesting subject.
	In welcoming the legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked about the Welsh Affairs Committee. On Thursday, at two o'clock, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will publish his reply, which will be available on the web at three o'clock. The noble Lord also mentioned the Auditor General's report on ELWa. That report was considered by the Assembly's Audit Committee on 25th September. I gather that the Audit Committee's report is expected to be published shortly. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on it. However, it was a point well made. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for his genuine welcome for the Bill.
	My noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon raised a number of interesting points. He wished to know which other organisations welcome the Bill. The Audit Commission, the Welsh Local Government Association and the Auditor General for Wales have all welcomed the Bill, as did all respondents to the consultation. The 22 recommendations which the Government did not accept are an absolutely crucial point. Those will be made available to everyone who took part in this debate and will be placed in the Library.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, wished to know which recommendations of the Assembly committee had not been accepted. I refer to three significant points. First, the committee wants Clause 54 of the Bill to be removed. I shall discuss that in a moment. The committee wants the Bill to be gender neutral in terminology and for the Assembly to have more rights than it has been given regarding the appointment of the Auditor General.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, wished to know what piggy-back Bills were expected in this Session. As in previous Sessions, a number of Bills will be brought before your Lordships in which separate provision will be made for Wales as a result of partnership between the UK Government and the National Assembly. A few examples of that are the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which was introduced in the previous Session, the higher education Bill, the children's Bill, the civil contingencies Bill, the fire and reserve rescue services Bill and the housing Bill.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, asked three very interesting questions. She asked whether a Wales only code of audit practice would be debated and approved by the Assembly. Clause 16 of the Bill has been amended as a result of consultation to ensure that a draft code of practice is not introduced until it has been approved by a resolution of the Assembly. The code will also be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament. The Auditor General's annual report and accounts are published by the Auditor General. Reports on accounts and audit and value for money studies that he undertakes can be, and usually are, published, and can be considered by the Assembly audit committee.
	The noble Baroness also asked whether the Assembly would be able to debate the appointment of the Auditor General. The Auditor General will be appointed by Her Majesty. In practice the National Assembly is asked for its view on the appointment of the Auditor General. It will be open to the Assembly to debate the appointment in plenary session on a Motion as recommended as part of that process without an amendment to the Government of Wales Act.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and a number of other noble Lords asked about the set-up costs and whether they were still £500,000, as estimated. That is still the estimated cost that is being worked to. The National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the National Assembly are at this moment working on costings. In October the Auditor General submitted a paper to the National Assembly audit committee estimating, on a provisional basis, transitional costs of £400,000, not £500,000, for the financial year 2004–05.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised extremely interesting points, many of which we shall have to look at, and no doubt come back to, at the next stage of the Bill. He asked about the public procurement initiative. That initiative is to be welcomed. The work of the Auditor General has focused, and will continue to focus, on securing value for money through effective procurement. The Auditor General has recently published a report on procurement in the further education sector.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and a number of other noble Lords returned to the matter of Clause 54 which I dealt with in my opening speech. Can it be deleted? Should it be deleted? Clearly, this is a matter to which we shall return. As I explained in my opening remarks, the key to the Government's decision to retain Clause 54 is their concern to preserve consistency on the criminal law between England and Wales. However, I refer noble Lords to a sentence in my opening speech; namely, that,
	"The Government consider, for this reason, that further consideration of disclosure matters should be on an England and Wales basis".
	That makes it fairly clear that the Government are arguing that the Bill is not the place to focus on the problem, so perhaps it should be looked at elsewhere.
	I have already paid tribute to the great knowledge of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in the area. She raised the question of whether Clause 2 left the Auditor General open to conflicts of interest. We think that Clause 2 does not inevitably lead to conflicts of interests. It will be for the Auditor General and his staff to ensure that a conflict of interest will not arise. It is not necessary to limit Clause 2 to situations that would not give rise to conflicts of interest, as that may be too restrictive.
	The noble Baroness raised other issues that we would like to consider before Committee. I am very grateful for the support given to the principles of the Bill, although I see interesting discussions taking place in Committee on various aspects of it. It has been a very constructive debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Media Ownership (Local Radio and Appointed News Provider) Order 2003

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [32nd Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the order be approved. It is mainly concerned with ownership of local analogue and digital radio broadcasting. The draft provisions are made under powers in Part 3 of Schedule 14 to the Communications Act for the Secretary of State to impose by order new ownership rules on holding local sound broadcasting licences and providing local digital sound programme services. In my view, the provisions of the draft order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	We believe that the ownership rules set out in the order represent a good balance between a plurality of ownership and the promotion of investment in the UK radio industry. In preparing the order, the Government held a long consultation with the Radio Authority and representatives of the radio industry, who are broadly content with the ownership rules in the order. The policy has remained the same as that announced in November last year. The order will replace the existing rules governing local radio ownership set out in Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990.
	Let me outline the provisions in the order. For analogue radio, the order introduces rules that ensure that there are at least two commercial radio operators, in addition to the BBC, in every area with a reasonable number of services. That is called the two plus one rule, the one being the BBC. In practice, that means that in every area where there are three or more commercial stations, there will be at least two commercial radio operators plus the BBC. The mechanism used to achieve that will be a local points scheme that the industry and the Radio Authority have developed together.
	The effect of the rules is that an existing local sound broadcasting licence holder is prevented from acquiring a licence which overlaps with two or more overlapping licences that he already holds, if that acquisition would mean that he held licences whose points represented more than 55 per cent of the total points attributable to all the licences in the area of any of his overlapping licences. I shall not go into the technical definition of points, if noble Lords will forgive me.
	In summary, so far as analogue broadcasting is concerned, the order will ensure that in well developed markets there are at least two owners as well as the BBC.
	Let me move on to cross-media ownership. A stricter points limit will apply to cross-media owners. Regional ITV licence-holders, or media owners who control more than 50 per cent of the local press in a radio station's covering area, will be allowed only 45 per cent of the points in that area. This rule will ensure that there are three local media owners in every well-developed market. It would apply only, however, to areas where there are three or more overlapping radio stations.
	To prevent monopolies in the smallest markets, the order introduces a backstop rule that will prevent joint ownership of a radio licence, a regional ITV licence and more than 50 per cent of the newspaper market in the same local area, whatever the number of local licences. So in all cases, there will be at least two media owners in an area, plus the BBC.
	A similar rule will prevent any operator providing services representing more than 55 per cent of points relating to the local digital programme services in an area. Again, this produces an outcome where there will generally be two owners in addition to the BBC in an area.
	The method of calculating this rule has changed since we first announced our ownership proposals, and we have worked closely with the Commercial Radio Companies Association and the Radio Authority in developing a new solution. Whereas the original proposal calculated the 55 per cent limit for digital services per multiplex, this draft order now applies the same limit per market. In other words, where there are two or more overlapping multiplexes, the limit applies to the total number of services across that area, rather than on a multiplex-by-multiplex basis.
	This method of calculating ownership limits will avoid the need for a multiplex operator to have to put his local digital sound programme services on a competitor's multiplex in the same area when there is capacity on his own multiplex. Ofcom will classify different types of service in the market depending on how regularly and for how long services are broadcast. Article 12 sets out definitions according to which Ofcom will do this.
	The number of points in a market can change if significant services launch or go off air, but they will not be affected by intermittent services or minor services coming or going. The system allows for fluctuations in the market as a result of the more flexible nature of digital broadcasting. We believe that this approach will maintain standards of plurality while allowing more flexibility. It will help to support digital radio take-up, still in its early stages, and is agreed by the industry and the regulator.
	It is important to see these changes to the radio ownership rules in the context of the overall regulatory regime. In radio, local stations will have to stick to the formats they agreed with the regulator. Whenever there is a change of ownership, Ofcom will be able to vary the licence as required to maintain the local character of the service.
	Ofcom will also be given a new power to protect and promote the local nature of local radio. This strengthens the duty on Ofcom to secure that local radio stations include material that is of interest to listeners in that locality and that an appropriate amount of that material should be locally produced. It will ensure that local radio remains genuinely local.
	Ofcom will review the ownership rules at least every three years and suggest further changes that it sees necessary. Ofcom will also be responsible for enforcing content regulation.
	Let me briefly touch on Part 4 of the order. This part makes minor changes to the Communications Act's news provider provisions and as to the meaning of "potential audience" in the rules on holding local radio multiplex licences. These make minor amendments which do not relate to the primary topic of this order and do not represent policy changes in media ownership.
	In summary, we believe that the draft order before the House still supports the principles that we set out in our media ownership consultation two years ago: that is, to retain a diversity of content from a plurality of sources; to promote competition; to provide regulatory certainty within a flexible legislative framework; to protect the localness of local radio; and to ensure that listeners get quality, creativity and innovation from those local services.
	The local radio ownership rules set out in this draft order have been consulted on widely and over several years. We believe that we have put the listener at the heart of these rules and plurality of ownership and diversity of content have been central to our thinking. We want high-quality local radio and we want sufficient local news and content. At the same time, we want to allow for increased competition and investment for the UK radio industry. We believe that this order strikes the right balance. I commend it to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [32nd Report, Session 2002–03, from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Luke: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his, as always, most coherent explanation of the provisions set out in this draft order.
	While the introduction of a less restrictive regime for commercial radio companies should be welcomed, as they are on these Benches, I have one question which I should like the Minister to address. In the brief provided for this order by the Commercial Radio Companies Association—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for that—the members of that organisation emphasise their disappointment that the order fails to address one of the key failings, as they see it, set out in paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 14 to the Communications Act, which imposes new and tighter restrictions on the ownership of local radio multiplexes.
	Previous legislation did not impose such restrictions, and the CRCA is perplexed as to why there should be a requirement for greater plurality from multiplex owners than for programme providers. Is the Minister in a position to answer that question?

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, there seems to be excessive politesse this evening. I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association. I heartily welcome the measures set out in the order. Taken together, they presage a significant step forward for the industry and provide a firm foundation for the future relationship between the radio industry and the new regulator, Ofcom.
	In particular, in Part 2 I welcome the ownership provisions for local analogue radio—the two plus one provisions. They will preserve diversity and plurality while permitting some consolidation of ownership. The result will be more investment and livelier competition for the BBC.
	In Part 3, I also welcome the framework that has been agreed on the ownership criteria to be applied to local digital-sound programme services. In particular, I thank the Government for their acceptance of the Commercial Radio Companies Association's argument for a market-based criterion.
	However, I am rather disappointed that there is not to be found in Part 4 any modification of the position taken in the Act on the imposition of restrictions on multiplex ownership—a point referred to by the noble Lord opposite. As the noble Lord pointed out, the restrictions imposed in the Act are more severe than those which applied before the Act came into being, when commercial radio companies were being encouraged to invest in digital multiplexes. At Third Reading, the Minister promised a consultation on these matters. Sadly, it proved to be less a consultation and more a brick wall.
	Be that as it may, the Minister will recall that there are two anomalies in Kent and in Ayrshire—that is, two patterns of multiplex investment made by heritage stations which at present would contravene the terms of the Act. Normally, it would be expected that those investments would be grandfathered. However, in a letter received today from the Secretary of State to the chief executive of the Commercial Radio Companies Association, it is made clear that that will not be the case. Instead, the two anomalies will be grandfathered only while in present ownership.
	It should be clear to all noble Lords that that decision imposes a serious economic penalty on the current owners, who have invested in a way that the Government encouraged them to do. It is rather as though a local planner said, "Okay, we won't build a motorway through the bottom of your garden. But once you try to sell your house, we will". In his reply, will the Minister outline the terms of the compensation to be offered to the current owners of the multiplexes in Kent and Ayrshire for the economic loss that the Secretary of State's decision has imposed on them?
	Finally, despite the remaining difficulties, the radio industry looks forward to working under the new Act and with the new regulator. A good relationship has already been established with Ofcom and, together, we intend to build a diverse, creative and prosperous commercial radio industry.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I deferred to the chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association because I wanted to hear the general tenor of his remarks. I am very pleased that, in the main, they were positive. I, too, look forward to hearing the precise figure of compensation that is to be offered in the multiplex examples cited. However, having been a member of the Puttnam committee and a strong advocate of plurality in the sector, I do not think I would go very far down the road in support of the position that the Commercial Radio Companies Association advocated in its brief.
	I think that the orders get it about right. I have read the excellent brief produced by the Commercial Radio Companies Association. Indeed, it answers some accusations that I would not even dream of making against commercial radio. However, it puts into context what we are doing in the whole of this sector. It is not just what happened here in Britain that we were concerned about; the examples we have seen in other parts of the world worried us. This sector was prone to rapid consolidation to the detriment of the consumer. When we prepared the Bill we heard from Pat Mitchell, president of public service broadcasting in the United States. Interestingly, he said:
	"You know the story of the canary in the coalmines; before coalminers would go down into the mines, they would send a canary down on a string. If the canary sang, it was safe for the miners to go in. If not, they stayed above.
	"In many ways what has happened with radio service in the States is the media canary. With deregulation of radio in 1996, one company has gone from owning a few hundred radio stations to owning more than 1,000 and the number is growing".
	Dennis Welch, a New Zealand media journalist commented on similar deregulation in New Zealand:
	"given that one parent of The Radio Network, our largest radio company, is a Texas-based conglomerate with radio outlets all over the world, perhaps it's not surprising that tuning into a local station these days is the aural equivalent of eating a Big Mac".
	That was the background against which many of us argued during the passage of the Bill that we wanted both the legislation and Ofcom to have powers to protect the local nature of our radio, both BBC and commercial. Although the Commercial Radio Companies Association is, quite properly, defensive of its members, there are examples of blanding, hubbing and centralised scheduling, all perfectly justifiable in commercial terms but not necessarily advantageous to the local nature of radio. That is why, again, a number of us have urged on the Government greater help for community radio to balance what has been lost to a certain extent in local radio.
	In case my friends—they are friends—in the commercial radio industry think that everything I say is negative, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that there has been some very brave investment in digital radio. Last night the Minister and I were both at the joint presentation by the BBC and the Commercial Radio Companies Association which showed just how exciting radio has now become as a sector. One only has to look at the advertising of goodies for Christmas to realise that digital radio has at long last made the breakthrough to become a "must have" in terms of Christmas presents.
	In the McNally household it is a regular battle whether we have Karrang Radio or Xfm—the choice of my 13-year old son—or BBC Radio 7, which allows me to listen to "Round the Horne" and "The Glums" once again, or Saga Radio. That is a kind of House of Lords for 1960s DJs but which plays some excellent pop music as I remember it. So I think that the mood and spirit around radio is extremely exciting.
	Although I would not dream of accusing the commercial radio sector of half the accusations it defends in its brief, I do think that the Government have got the situation about right in both encouraging investment and safeguarding plurality in the order.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is far too young for Saga Radio. I am grateful for the general support that has been expressed for the order. It has been unanimous on almost every part of the order. The only question which I have to answer is on the issue of multiplex ownership in Part 4 of the Bill.
	I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Eatwell thinks that the consultation process was a brick wall rather than consultation. My understanding is that the consultation process was lengthy and well considered. It resulted in the total support of the Radio Authority and the support of the Commercial Radio Companies Association on all but one point. I would have thought that that was real consultation.
	I turn to the substance of what my noble friend Lord Eatwell said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I think that there are issues for which we must stand up. It is not true that there was no previous regulation of multiplex licences. There was no effective regulation. The regulations were not clear. They were not actually observed because they were unclear and defective. But it has never been a secret that we thought that there should be regulation of multiplex licences, just as for any other comparable service. The comparison with programme providers is not a valid comparison. There we are talking really about chalk and cheese.
	So, if we move on from my argument that there should be regulation, what is its correct form? It was not criticised specifically, except to say correctly that in two areas—Ayrshire and Kent—there are multiplex owners who conflict with the proposed rules. We propose grandfathering for that. Grandfathering means that the existing owners of these multiplexes will be protected from the rules imposed by this order. That is what grandfathering means everywhere. There is no change from its definition here to when it is used anywhere else in the Communications Act or indeed in any other Act. If there were any extension of it, that would no longer be grandfathering, it would be a permanent exemption for the successors.
	Similarly, because the change has been clearly signalled and is proportionate to the issue, which is to protect plurality, the question of compensation does not, cannot and should not arise. That leads me to my final point about plurality. Everyone who took part in the proceedings on the Communications Bill, particularly at Third Reading, will recall that this House was very passionate about the need for maintaining plurality. The order maintains plurality. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st December be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty.
	The regulations set business recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste for the years 2004 to 2008. They also make other changes to the existing legislation which are designed to improve the working of the present system. Subject to approval the regulations will come into effect on 1st January 2004.
	The packaging regulations have been in place since 1997 and were designed to allow the UK to meet the targets in the 1994 EC directive on packaging and packaging waste in 2001. We know already that there will be higher recovery and recycling targets to be met in 2008 and these are reflected in the regulations before us.
	The regulations require businesses covered by the law to take responsibility, either individually or by joining a compliance scheme, for ensuring that target levels of recovery and recycling of packaging waste are met each year.
	We have done well so far. As a result of those businesses affected meeting their recycling obligations, the United Kingdom achieved a 44 per cent recycling and a 50 per cent recovery rate for packaging waste by the end of 2002. This is an increase in recycling of 17 percentage points and in recovery of 20 percentage points since the regulations came into force in 1997.
	We believe that by setting future targets for the period 2004 to 2008, as requested by business and endorsed in the consultation held earlier this year, and by making improvements to the systems for the collection and recycling of packaging waste, these regulations will enable the United Kingdom to meet its future packaging directive requirements and make an important contribution to the achievement of the UK waste strategies and the sustainable development of our economy.
	It would be remiss of me were I not to note how grateful we are for the work of the Advisory Committee on Packaging under its chairman, John Turner, for its valuable input into this comprehensive review. In drawing up the regulations we have accepted most of the recommendations of the ACP, which were also, for the most part, endorsed in the consultation. I commend the regulations to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st December be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear exposition of the regulations. Would that the regulations themselves were as clear.
	I am rather in the position where I am reminded of a song from my youth about 10 green bottles standing on a wall. We are now down to six—seven including the Deputy Speaker.
	I am not happy about the procedures in which we are indulging ourselves. Last week we knew that these regulations were to come before the House. I could get a copy of the 1997 regulations; I could get a copy of the 2002 regulations; I could get a copy of the original EC directive. Could I get a copy of the regulations we are discussing today? I could not. It was not until yesterday that I finally received a typescript copy of these regulations and a printed copy was available today. I do not believe I was in a unique situation, but it has made it extremely difficult for us to find out what the regulations are about and to be properly briefed by those who will be affected by them. The regulations apply to industry, but if one reads them, although they are written in impeccable English, one needs an academic lawyer to interpret them, who must go through all the background to know exactly what they are all about.
	Be that as it may, I accept that the purpose of the regulations is benign and I do not want to delay their implementation. However, it has certainly not been easy to find out exactly what has happened. I accept that there has been consultation with the industry; but whether the regulations are on the same basis as the consultation is another matter. As far as I can make out, they are not. The percentage required to be recycled or recovered is greater than in the original consultation.
	I am slightly puzzled, because the regulations are being introduced to deal with an anticipated EU directive in 2008. Why do we need to regulate now to provide for a situation that may have changed by the time we have to deal with it? I cannot help but wonder whether we are not gold-plating the provision to some degree. We know that consultation with the industry was based on 61 per cent recovery or recycling by 2004, but the regulations now demand 63 per cent. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain why that change has been made.
	Another small change may not be fundamental, but the industry compliance plans under the old regime, if I may put it that way, had to be submitted by 30th June. Now, under the regulations, those plans must be submitted by 31st January. The implementation date for the new regulations is 1st January 2004. Is the requirement that those plans be submitted by 31st January to apply when the regulations are implemented, or from a year later? If we are in effect giving the industry two weeks' notice of a major shift in the timing of plans being provided to the authorities, we are putting it in a difficult position.
	The regulations will not be cheap for the industry. Some new offences are included that may cause problems. There is a step increase in the cost of licences, which are essential to be involved in recovery or recycling—one cannot do that without a licence. If one moves from recycling 400 tonnes to 401 tonnes, that extra tonne will cost another £2,150 on the licence. That is an interesting anomaly that does not encourage an expansive and dynamic industry.
	That said, those are criticisms of procedure and of the rush with which the regulations are being introduced, because it has not been possible to receive sufficient explanation from the industry. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say in reply.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, having arrived breathless at the last minute, without having realised that this important matter was on the Order Paper, I have been persuaded by my noble friends sitting in array on the Front Bench to say something on it. I am delighted to be able to do so, but I must confess that I have not had the opportunity to undertake the research that clearly the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has done.
	Does the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, agree that there is no room for complacency in our discussion of the issue? This country does not have good recycling targets. There are honourable exceptions, but, on average, we are pretty poor at reducing waste. The explanatory note on the order refers to stimulating the recycling market. Can the noble Baroness comment on stimulating the market for products made from recycled materials? I am aware of London Remade, which does good work but in an inevitably limited fashion. The memorandum also refers to the producer calculating its recovery and recycling obligations; but is the point not to reduce waste before one reaches the stage of reusing and recycling? I hope that, in working towards the targets set in this order and, no doubt, others, we remember not to lose sight of that important point.
	I have difficulty in understanding the extent to which the order applies to packaging waste discarded by households. Obviously, in this context the term "domestic" refers to the UK rather than households. However, I will not be the only householder sitting in this Chamber who finds the amount of packaging that one inevitably acquires, very often as a result of buying the simplest item, quite offensive. Although one tries, one cannot always leave the shops with a brown paper bag of apples. They are packed on a polystyrene tray, possibly covered with rigid plastic or sealing plastic, for instance.
	Noble Lords who have been to the Republic of Ireland recently will have been hugely impressed by the change of culture, almost overnight, as a result of the tax on plastic bags. That means not only that plastic bags no longer hang from hedgerows throughout the country, waving at you, but more importantly, a material is not being used, discarded and then disposed of in landfill sites. Many of us would like to be forced to think about taking a bag with us when we go shopping.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, arrived in time to take part in this short debate. Perhaps the Government, in full consultation with and operation alongside the industry, have got it right. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, implied that we were going too quickly, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we were going too slowly. As it seems to be a night for declaring age, musical interests and infirmities, I find—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will find when he reaches my great age—that not only hankering after records of the 1950s but not even being able to open packets of biscuits becomes a problem.
	I agree with reusing materials and reducing waste production. We are not gold-plating the directive; we have set business targets in the UK regulations to achieve the directive targets that we must meet in 2008. There may have been a little confusion. The 20th November business targets are different from the directive targets.
	The intention of the directive and the regulations in driving recycling is also to promote greater use of recycled materials. The use of these materials by producers will result in lower costs of compliance for the industry—to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
	I note the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about plastic bags. Some supermarkets now discourage the use of bags by offering reusable bags at a reasonable price. I have dealt with the issue of over-packaging. In these strategies, we have set national standards for the recycling and composting of all household waste. Those have been underpinned by challenging statutory performance standards for local authority recycling. More than half the 10 million tonnes or so of packaging waste arises in the household stream, as the noble Baroness recognises. We believe that this work in the industry plays an important role alongside that issue.
	I am sorry about the problem referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the statutory instrument. The draft statutory instrument was laid on the 19th November and 100 copies were sent to each House. It had to be withdrawn because of a clerical error—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will remember the problem that we had when cattle and beef got mixed up in an order. In this case, it was necessary to change the word "or" to "and". However, printed copies of the replacement were available on Friday 5th December. Another statutory instrument was actually re-laid the same day that it was withdrawn.
	We are aware that reprocessors are falling just below the fee threshold and could be affected, but there are only very few in this category. Recent data supplied by the Environment Agency suggest that there only seven reprocessers issuing between 400 and 500 PRNs.
	We have not yet published the responses to the consultation. Our summary of the responses will be placed on the Defra website shortly. In the mean time, we have indicated in the regulatory impact assessments, especially the RIA on other changes, what percentage of responses were in favour of a particular proposal and the types of comments received.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, questioned the timing and procedure related to setting out targets. Targets were agreed in the common position reached by member states in September 2002. That was endorsed at second reading in the European Parliament. The targets are now legally agreed. Some other issues have been holding up agreement on the directive, but I am pleased to inform noble Lords that agreement has been formally reached in the past few days. The targets agreed to in the common position are available on the Commission's website. I also stress that we need to plan ahead, because we have to meet a target by 2008.
	We expect the new regulations to come into force on 1st January and updated compliance plans will be due on 31st January 2004. Most schemes already know what their membership is likely to be next year. They will be updating an existing three-year plan, not developing a new one.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also raised the issue of the 61 per cent recovery target being changed to a target of 63 per cent for 2004. Since publication of the consultation paper, the data that we used to calculate the targets have changed. Third quarter reprocessor data suggest that the UK is recovering more packaging waste this year than had been expected, although, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we are not complacent. That changes the starting point for the new targets. We have been informed by the industry that the amount of glass, wood and packaging waste in the waste stream is higher than previously thought. That means that a higher target is needed to achieve the required results.
	I thank noble Lords for taking part in this short debate.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.